An Analysis Of The Selection Criteria For Assignment Of Students To Advanced Placement Classes In The Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation h as b een
m icrofilm ed exactly as receiv ed 6 8 — 1 6 8 0
HANDLER, Harry, 1928-
AN ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR
ASSIGNMENT OF STUDENTS TO ADVANCED PLACEMENT
CLASSES IN THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
University of Southern California, Ph.D„ 1967
Education, psychology
U n iversity M icrofilm s, Inc., A n n Arbor, M ichigan
AN ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNMENT
OF STUDENTS TO ADVANCED PLACEMENT CLASSES IN
THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
by
Harry Handler
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Educational Psychology)
September 1967
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA
T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L
U N IV E R S IT Y P A R K
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
Harry Handler
under the direction of h.%f*...Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
£jate Sep tember 2? 1967
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people have made the completion of this
doctoral study possible. Throughout all, my wife,
Kay, provided unfailing patience, understanding, and
encouragement.
The Committee on Studies gave guidance and
displayed encouraging confidence during the prolonged
program. As friend and Committee Chairman, Dr. Newton
S. Metfessel, provided invaluable advisement and an
exemplary professional model.
The completion of the dissertation would not
have been possible without the assistance of my
dedicated secretary, Mrs. Lillian Hirashima.
The study was conducted with the cooperation
of the Secondary Division of the Los Angeles City
Schools. The enthusiastic participation of staff
and students was most gratifying.
To these, and many others, I express my
appreciation.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURE.......................... v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY.................. 1
Background for the Study
Objective of the Study
Statement of Hypothesis
Procedures
Assumptions
Limitations and Delimitations
Definitions
Organization of the Remaining
Chapters
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................... 17
Definitions
Identification of the Gifted
Chapter Summary
III. PROCEDURE.................................. 56
The School District
Sample Selection
Tests and Instruments
Cumulative Record Data
Data Analyses
Chapter Summary
IV. REPORT AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS .... 73
Statement of Hypothesis
Descriptive Statistics
Factor Analyses
Discriminant Analysis
Chapter Summary
iii
Chapter Page
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 94
Summary
Findings
Conclusions and Recommendations
for Further Research
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................... 108
APPENDICES........................................ 117
APPENDIX A. Descriptive Statistics ................ 119
APPENDIX B. Descriptive Statistics Related to Method
of Placement........................ 122
APPENDIX C. Factor Analyses......... 134
APPENDIX D. Discriminant Analysis ................ 146
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Classification of the Creativity Tests Using
the Guilford Structure of Intellect Model . . 65
2. Descriptive Statistics for State Gifted and
Los Angeles Gifted Groups .................. 75
3. Factor Analysis— State Gifted............ 80
4. Factor Analysis— Los Angeles Gifted .......... 81
5. Summary of Discriminant Analysis........ 86
6. Coefficients of Discriminant Functions .... 87
7. Discriminant Analysis Classification Matrices . 88
8. Descriptive Statistics for State Gifted Boys
and Girls.............................. .. . 119
9. Descriptive Statistics for Los Angeles Gifted
Boys and Girls.................. 120
10. State Gifted— Placement on the Basis of Group
Intelligence and Group Quantitative Tests . . 122
11. State Gifted--Placement on the Basis of Group
Intelligence and Group Verbal Tests ........ 123
12. State Gifted--Placement on the Basis of Group
Intelligence, Group Verbal, and Group
Quantitative Tests ........................ 124
13. State Gifted--Placement on the Basis of
Individual Intelligence Tests ........ 125
14. State Gifted— Placement on the Basis of
Individual Intelligence, Group Intelligence,
and Group Quantitative Tests .............. 126
15. State Gifted— Placement on the Basis of
Individual Intelligence, Group Intelligence,
and Group Verbal Tests .............. 127
v
Table Page
16. State Gifted--Placement on the Basis of
Individual Intelligence, Group Intelligence,
Group Quantitative and Verbal Tests ........ 128
17. Los Angeles Gifted--Placement on the Basis of
Recommendations and Competence in Subject
Field....................................... 129
18. Los Angeles Gifted--Placement on the Basis of
Recommendations, Competence in Subject Field,
and Intelligence Tests .................... 130
19. Los Angeles Gifted--Placement on the Basis of
Recommendations, Competence in Subject Field,
and Achievement Tests...................... 131
20. Los Angeles Gifted--Placement on the Basis of
Recommendations, Competence in Subject Field,
Achievement, and Intelligence Tests ........ 132
21. Correlation Matrix--State Gifted ............. 135
22. Factor Analysis— State Gifted................. 138
23. Correlation Matrix--Los Angeles Gifted .... 140
24. Factor Analysis— Los Angeles Gifted........... 143
25. Stepwise Discriminant Analysis .............. 147
Figure
1. Model of the Structure of Intellect 52
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The poet William McFee, in discussing responsibil
ity, wrote: "Responsibility is like a string we can only
see the middle of. Both ends are out of sight." One of
the most serious responsibilities shared by professional
educators is the differential assessment and evaluation of
students prior to grouping them for instruction. The area
of concern in this research effort was related to the
assignment of high school seniors to Advanced Placement
classes in the Los Angeles Unified School District.
In Education of the Gifted, the Educational Poli
cies Commission stated in part:
We should seek on a widespread scale to identify in
every school and community our gifted children and
to provide for them the opportunities required for
their full development. For we need in the United
States men and women of superior ability as leaders
in business, art, education, journalism, labor and
scientific research. (22:62)
Support of this philosophy was given by the Rocke
feller Report on education which stated:
If we are to do justice to the individual, we must
seek for him the level and kind of education which
will open his eyes, stimulate his mind and unlock
his potentialities. We should seek to develop many
1
2
educational patterns, each geared to the particular
capacities of the student for which it is designed.
(73:32)
The importance of criteria for the differential
assessment and placement of students is indicated in the
statement of the basic point of view of the Los Angeles
City Schools:
The basic point of view of the Los Angeles City
Schools is that every pupil be expected to make the
most of his potentialities; that every pupil be
helped to attain as high a level of intellectual
development as is possible; that there be deliberate
plans made to identify individual differences; and
that provisions be made for learning situations for
pupils of varied abilities, interests, and talents.
(58:1)
It was with this philosophy in mind that the
present investigation was undertaken.
Background for the Study
Prior to the advent of the California State Study
T
Project of the gifted and subsequent legislation which
established standards for student identification and
designated program approval for excess cost reimbursement,
the Los Angeles City Schools had established local cri
teria for selection of students. These criteria were
listed in a bulletin from the Secondary Division as
follows :
1. Recommendations of principals, counselors, and
teachers.
and
3
2. Demonstrated high competence and potential in
the subject field background necessary for
participation in the Honors Classes.
and
3. Either of the following qualifications:
a. Consistent measured academic achievement at
least two years above grade placement as
measured by standardized test or measured
academic achievement at the 95th percentile
or higher on a test which is interpreted in
percentiles.
b. An intelligence quotient of approximately
130 or higher as determined by a group
mental test, or from a psychological study,
or an intelligence quotient at least two
standard deviations above the mean for the
test used. (60:2)
In 1961, Article 23 was added to the California
Education Code and the California Administrative Code.
Section 199.11 of Article 23, Subchapter 1 of Chapter 1 of
Title V of the California Administrative Code, established
minimum standards for programs for mentally gifted minors
for whom excess cost reimbursement may be claimed. Part
(b) of Section 199.11 reads as follows:
(1) A score on an individual intelligence test,
such as the Revised Stanford-Binet Scale, Form L-M,
representing an intelligence quotient of 130 or
above, administered by a person credentialed for
this purpose by the State Board of Education.
[or]
(2) A score at or above the 98th percentile on
a group test of mental ability and a score at or
above the 98th percentile on a standardized test of
reading achievement or arithmetic achievement, each
test having been administered within a period of no
more than 36 months of the date of identification.
Beginning July 1, 1963, the tests used for this
purpose must be chosen from a list of tests approved
by the State Board of Education under the provisions
of Education Code Section 12821.
[or]
(3) The judgments of teachers, psychologists,
and school administrators and supervisors who are
familiar with the demonstrated ability of the minors
provided that not more than three (3) per cent of
the pupils for whom an excess cost reimbursement is
claimed shall be identified on such judgments alone.
(84)
Because of the restrictive nature of the State
criteria, the Los Angeles City Unified School District
continued to operationally use the City criteria in identi
fying pupils for Advanced Placement and other Honors
classes. Related insights are outlined in a recent paper
in which Garlock (33:2) reported a study conducted to
determine the theoretical percentage of pupils who would be
placed in gifted programs as a result of the State cri
teria. He pointed out that it is obviously more difficult
to obtain a score at or above the ninety-eighth percentile
on both of two tests than it is on either one of two tests
alone. He hypothesized that fewer students would meet the
double criteria of attaining at least a ninety-eight per
centile on an intelligence test and the ninety-eight per
centile on achievement tests of reading and/or arithmetic
than if a single criterion of attaining at least the
ninety-eight percentile on any one of the three tests were
used. He contended that as a result of the multiple
criteria, the program which is intended to include 2 per
cent of the population would, in fact, have less than 2 per
cent of the population placed in gifted programs. The
results of his theoretical investigation led him to make
the following statement:
Whereas, it was the intent of the legislature
that two per cent of the population would meet the
gifted criterion a perusal of Table I indicates
that for those correlations which are typically
found between the variables in question, less than
one per cent of the population would meet the
gifted criterion. (33:6)
In 1963 the Division of Secondary Education of the
Los Angeles City Schools conducted a study to determine
(1) the estimated number of pupils who qualified for the
Honors program by Los Angeles criteria and by the State
criteria; (2) the actual number of pupils who were reported
as of fall 1962-63 as being in the Honors program and who
qualified by Los Angeles criteria and also qualified by
State criteria; and (3) the estimated numbers of pupils,
by school and in total, who qualified for the Honors pro
gram by local and state criteria for selection and who
were not in the Honors program.
The analysis of the data indicated:
1. Honors programs were not reported for 74 of the
113 secondary schools.
2. An estimated 3,425 pupils who qualified by State
criteria were not reported as identified in an
Honors program.
3. An estimated 8,734 pupils who qualified by Los
Angeles Gifted criteria were not reported in
Honors classes.
4. The estimated number of pupils who would have
met the State criteria was 2.4 per cent of the
total secondary enrollment.
5. The estimated number of pupils who would have
met the Los Angeles Gifted criteria was 6.1 per
cent of the total secondary enrollment.
6. The actual number of qualified pupils who met
the State criteria and were in Honors programs
represented 0.8 per cent of the total secondary
enrollment.
7. The actual number of qualified pupils who met
the Los Angeles Gifted criteria and were in
Honors programs represented approximately 2.1
per cent of the total secondary population.
(59:6)
The report that only 0.8 per cent of the total
secondary enrollment had been identified as meeting the
State criteria created a great deal of concern.
A review of the report of the work of the Los
Angeles City Committee on the Education of Intellectually
Gifted Pupils during the period 1956-65 indicated the
concern which existed in regard to identification criteria.
The following statements were included in the report:
1. 1961-62
Preliminary study concerning broadening the
definition of giftedness initiated.
New intelligence test which measured specific
areas of academic ability and tests of crea
tive ability were examined and recommendations
made for experimental use of creativity tests.
2. 1962-63
Study regarding a broader definition of gifted
ness continued with experimentation with tests
of creativity and Kuhlman-Anderson and CTMM
7
[California Test of Mental Maturity] at junior
high school level.
3. 1963-64
The subcommittee on definition of giftedness
continued with experimental use of tests of
creativity. In addition, a study was made of
the relationship between verbal and quantitative
factors.
Committee recommendations were:
a. That the results of the research on verbal
and quantitative factors of intelligence be
analyzed to determine the next steps that
should be taken.
b. That an investigation be made to determine
if the experimental use of Guilford Tests
of Creativity at the secondary level might
prove feasible.
c. That further study directed toward the
expansion of definition of giftedness empha
size :
1. Multiple-criteria approach to gifted
ness.
2. Analysis of test results currently
available to determine their value in
expanding the definition of intelligence.
3. In-service training of teachers to
improve the use of information currently
available about the intelligence of
pupils.
4. 1964-65
Committee on expanding definition of giftedness
approved experimental use of tests of creativ
ity regarding attitudinal and creative factors
of achieving and non-achieving Mexican-American
youths.
Participation in the standardization of Dr.
[Newton] Metfessel's individual tests of crea
tivity approved.
Relationship between verbal and quantitative
factors studied at A7 and A8 grades.
Identification procedure of potentially gifted
pupils in educationally disadvantaged areas
studied.
5. 1965-66
Committee on expanding definition of giftedness
continued to explore improved methods for iden
tification and placement of pupils. (62:1-5)
The questions raised by the Committee on Education
of Intellectually Gifted Pupils which were related directly
to the study included the following:
1. Do the students who meet the Los Angeles
criteria have many characteristics in common
with the students who meet the State criteria?
2. Does either set of criteria favor boys or
girls?
3. What characteristics would the two groups have
in common if tests of creativity were incor
porated in the selection criteria?
Objective of the Study
The major objective for the study was to identify
common and unique characteristics of the two groups of
students assigned to Los Angeles Advanced Placement
classes; those assigned on the basis of Los Angeles cri
teria and those assigned on the basis of State criteria.
9
Statement of Hypothesis
The hypothesis of concern in the study was the
following:
HQ: The two groups, students who meet the Los Angeles
criteria and students who meet the State criteria,
do not differ with respect to the following four
characteristics:
A. Scholastic
B. Creativity
C. Affiliation-Leadership
D. Parent Education.
The variables used to assess the four characteris
tics are listed below:
A. Scholastic
1. Henmon-Nelson Intelligence Test scores
2. Cooperative English Test scores
a. Vocabulary
b. Level of Comprehension
c. Speed of Comprehension
d. English Expression
3. Iowa Tests of Educational Development:
Test 4— Ability to Do Quantitative Think
ing scores
4. Grade Point Averages
5. Age
10
6. Sex
B. Creativity
Selected Guilford Tests of Creativity
1. Making Objects Test scores--Divergent pro
duction of figural systems
2. Utility Test scores (fluency)— Divergent
production of semantic units
3. Utility Test scores (flexibility)--Diver
gent production of semantic classes
4. Figure Production Test scores— Divergent
production of figural implications
5. Seeing Problems Test scores--Evaluation of
J L
semantic implications
6. Symbol Production Test scores— Divergent
production of semantic transformations
7. Object Synthesis Test scores--Convergent
JL
production of semantic transformations
C. Affiliation-Leadership
1. Number of school and/or non-school club
memberships
2. Number of offices held in school and/or
non-school clubs
3. Number of student body offices
*Although not defined by Guilford as divergent
factors, these are considered by Guilford, Merrifield, and
Cox (42:5) to be important contributors to creative
thinking.
D. Parent Education
Yes or No responses to the questions:
1. Did your father attend college?
2. Did your father graduate from college?
3. Did your mother attend college?
4. Did your mother graduate from college?
Procedures
The study was conducted in the twelve Los Angeles
Senior High Schools which offered Advanced Placement
classes during the Spring Semester, 1965, and was limited
to A-12 students. The investigation included 438 of the
678 students enrolled in twenty-seven of the thirty-seven
Advanced Placement classes offered. Data collection was
completed for 390 students in the original sample.
Creativity tests and student questionnaires were
administered by credentialed school psychologists and
psychometrists to all students enrolled in the twenty-seven
Advanced Placement classes. Cumulative records were
analyzed to: (1) identify A-12 students who met the L.A.
Gifted criteria; (2) identify A-12 students who met the
State Gifted criteria; and (3) obtain data related to
scholastic characteristics. Data concerning affiliation-
leadership and parent education were obtained from student
questionnaires.
The major hypothesis of the study was investigated
12
using factor analytic and discriminant analysis techniques.
A detailed description of the procedure is pre
sented in Chapter III.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in the study:
1. The Henmon-Nelson Intelligence Test was a valid
measure of general intelligence.
2. The Cooperative English Tests were valid meas
ures of verbal achievement.
3. The ITED— Test 4 was a valid quantitative
measure.
4. Grade point averages were valid indicators of
achievement.
5. The selected Guilford Tests of Creativity were
valid measures.
6. Data related to student body offices and club
membership would provide a measure of
affiliation-leadership.
7. Information from questionnaires related to
parent education was reliable.
8. Data recorded on cumulative records were
reliable.
13
Limitations and Delimitations
In the study the following major limitations and
delimitations were in effect:
1. The Guilford Tests of Creativity were consid
ered to be experimental research instruments
and had not been standardized for the popula
tion sampled in the study.
2. The study was limited to A-12 students in
Advanced Placement classes in the Los Angeles
Unified School District.
3. The data were restricted to those students for
whom all data were available.
Definitions
The following operational definitions applied to
the terms used in the study:
Advanced Placement classes. Classes in a program
which provide for college level courses taught on the high
school campus by qualified high school teachers. Partici
pating students may achieve high school graduation credit
for successful completion of the courses. Advanced stand
ing credit and/or advanced college placement may also be
achieved by students who elect to take and are successful
in the Advanced Placement Examinations administered
through the Educational Testing Service at the participat
ing high schools.
Affiliation-Leadership. A characteristic related
to the number of school and/or non-school club memberships,
number of offices held in school and/or non-school clubs,
and number of student body offices.
Creativity. A characteristic related to scores
obtained on seven selected Guilford measures of creativity.
Grade Point Average (GPA). Numerical average of
marks in all courses except Physical Education and ROTC for
the B-10, A-10, B-ll, A-11, and B-12 semesters. Numerical
values of 4=A, 3=B, 2=C, 1*=D, and 0=Fail were assigned to
subject marks. GPA was obtained by dividing total number
of grade points by the total number of courses.
L.A. Gifted. Students assigned to Advanced Place
ment classes who did not meet the State gifted criteria
but did meet the Los Angeles gifted criteria for placement
in the Honors Program.
Parent Education. A characteristic derived from
parent attendance atid graduation from college.
Scholastic. A characteristic related to the
following variables:
a. Henmon-Nelson Intelligence test scores
b. Cooperative English test scores
15
Vocabulary
Level of Comprehension
Speed of Comprehension
English Expression
c. Iowa Test of Educational Development--Test 4
scores
d. Grade Point Average (GPA)
e. Age
f. Sex.
State Gifted. Students assigned to Advanced Place
ment classes who qualified on the basis of California State
criteria for identification of mentally gifted minors for
whom reimbursement may be claimed by a school district.
Organization of the Remaining Chapters
Chapter II presents a review of the literature
dealing with definitions of giftedness, criteria for the
identification of gifted students and the expanding con
cept of giftedness.
Chapter III describes the procedures, the sample,
the assessment instruments, and the analysis of the data.
Chapter IV presents the findings of the study.
Descriptive statistics, factor patterns, and results of
the multiple-discriminant analysis are discussed.
Chapter V presents a summary, conclusions and
recommendations for further research.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter reviews reports of research and cites
conclusions of investigations related to the present study.
Definitions and criteria of giftedness and similar traits
are reviewed. Methods of identifying gifted children are
presented giving emphasis to intelligence tests, teacher
judgment, tests of creativity, and multivariate approaches.
Definitions
Studies of the gifted have been clouded by lack of
agreement on definition. Criteria have ranged from the
precise one of Terman (89:631), an intelligence quotient of
140 as measured on the Stanford-Binet Test of Intelligence,
to such statements as Witty's (98:513): ". . . one whose
performance is consistently remarkable in any potentially
valuable area." Children with superior learning and
performance potential have many labels: prodigy, genius,
precocious, talented, capable, bright, exceptional, and
able are used repeatedly in the literature. The term
gifted itself has been used over a long period of time.
17
18
Hildreth (47:15) reported its use as early as 1912 and 1913
and it is still used in contemporary literature, not only
frequently but with a range of meanings.
Two characteristics which generally set "gifted"
apart from other terms are concepts of innateness and
generality, perhaps reflections of Galton's Hereditary
Genius (32), Spearman's (82:311) g. factor of intelligence,
and Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius (89) which brought
together concepts formulated by the others.
Differentiation between early restricted concepts
of giftedness and talent was explained by Getzels and
Jackson:
. . . the term "gifted child" has become synonymous
with the expression "child with a high IQ" thus
binding us to other forms of excellence.
. . . the term "creative child" has become synony
mous with the expression "child with artistic
talents" thus limiting our attempts to identify
and foster cognitive abilities relating to crea
tive functioning in areas other than art. (35:75)
A broadly defined talent component in giftedness is
a relatively recent concept. It implies a high degree of
specific, rather than general, ability or aptitude with a
learning component rather than being exclusively hereditary.
Gowan and Demos (37:6) made the following distinction:
Gifted connotes a generalized aspect of ability approximat
ing or similar to Spearman's g (general) factor as measured
by the Stanford-Binet, especially in young children.
Talented refers to the presence of Spearman's s (specific)
19
factor, besides the general factor found for the gifted.
Passow (68:223) reported that since no single
uniform definition is widely accepted, the National Educa
tion Association project on the academically talented
student used an operational definition: "Talent is the
capacity for superior achievement in certain areas of
endeavor which have consistently advanced civilization,"
which is almost a paraphrase of the definition of gifted
by Witty.
The National Council for the Gifted, Inc., as cited
by Hildreth (47:21) likewise included in its definition of
the gifted those students of high intelligence who also
possess the potential for unusual performance in any crea
tive socially useful area of human concern.
At a conference on the gifted held at Teachers
College, Columbia University, in 1940, Hildreth (47:20)
reported the following statement was made: "We may define
the intellectually gifted child as one who excels markedly
in ability to think, reason, judge, invent or create."
Sumption and Luecking (87:7) also wrote of giftedness in
intellectual terms: "The gifted are defined as those who
possess a superior nervous system characterized by the
potential to perform tasks requiring a comparatively high
degree of intellectual abstractions or creative imagina
tion."
Havighurst (45:19) pointed out that under a broad
20
definition, the gifted would include not just the 2 or 5
per cent with the highest intelligence quotients, but also
the ". . .20 per cent with promise of exceptionally good
performance in a variety of areas of constructive activity."
DeHaan and Havighurst (19:135) further contended there are
many bright and talented children within the top 20 per
cent of the juvenile population, and would distinguish
between (1) high-level scholastic or academic aptitude,
mentally exceptional; (2) scientific aptitude; (3) superior
talent in arts and crafts, creative writing; (4) social
leadership; and (5) mechanical ingenuity. Thus, they
included not only the intellectually gifted, but also those
who show promise in music, graphic arts, creative writing,
dramatics, mechanical skills, and social leadership.
This position was supported by Leese and Fliegler
in the following statement:
Giftedness may be defined as a superior general
intellectual potential and ability (approximate IQ
120 plus); a high functional ability to achieve in
various academic areas commensurate with general
intellectual ability; a high order talent in such
special areas as art, music, mechanical ability,
foreign languages, science, mathematics, dramatics,
social leadership, creative writing and a creative
ability to develop a novel event in the environment.
This definition probably includes about fifteen to
twenty per cent of the school population. (55:16)
Awareness of the need to recognize a variety of
gifts and to develop many talents in children has resulted
in expanded definitions. In a sense, however, the whole
history is summarized by the following definition by
21
English and English (28:226):
Gifted Child :
1. a child whose intelligence is in the upper two
per cent of the total population of his age.
2. a child having outstanding ability in any
respect.
Identification of the Gifted
Not only do definitions of giftedness vary, but
there is also a wide range of criteria for identifying
gifted children. Identification methods have, understand
ably, also moved from singular to multiple criteria. The
IQ measure used by Terman selected a homogeneous population
with high verbal ability. There is no way of knowing how
many children gifted with other abilities did not qualify
under the single criterion used for selection.
Terman (89:631) himself had used teacher nomina
tions and age-grade placements for determining who should
be tested since it was not possible to screen the entire
population with individual intelligence tests. He realized
the inadequacy of this method and felt that to locate the
gifted other methods should be used in addition to teacher
estimate.
Hildreth suggested the following basic criteria for
distinguishing the gifted:
1. he is superior to his age-mates in traits other
than those capacities that are purely physical,
22
physiological, or dependent primarily on muscular
development;
2. he possesses the intellectual powers in qualities
essential for success with advanced education and
training in general or in his specialty;
3. his superior developmental maturation is reason
ably consistent from the early years of life to
maturity;
4. his unusual abilities may be general or special
ized, his superior traits single or multiple;
5. the traits and abilities in which he shows
superiority are those that predict unusual
achievement or productivity in areas of high
social value. (47:22)
The Southern Regional Project for Education of the
Gifted (81:45) reported that procedures used in identifica
tion of the gifted have varied according to the definition
adopted, the size and the location of school, staff avail
ability, and the objectives of the program for the gifted.
A report on a one-year study involving some forty-four
schools and organizations having programs for gifted pupils
indicated that nation-wide the IQ seems to be the most
generally accepted single criterion for identifying the
gifted. The report also stated, however, that educators
and psychologists recognize the importance of considering
all phases of child development in identifying the gifted:
The trend appears to be to collect all of the data
possible on each child and to entrust to a team of
professional persons the responsibility of identify
ing, selecting, and placing those considered quali
fied for participation in a program. (81:45)
DeHaan (18:47) believed that identification should
involve interest, motivation, personality and social factors
23
as well as aptitudes and capacities. Nolan (66:180) also
pointed out the need for expanded criteria, and Severson
(78:154) discussed the importance of multi-factor identifi
cation processes at the secondary level. Stenquist (85:22)
regarded intelligence tests as but one of many means of
selection which should include teachers' judgment, achieve
ment, special abilities, and physical and social maturity.
Other specialists further expanded the concept of
multiple criteria for identification. Bevans (3:146)
discussed giftedness in terms of academic, social, mechan
ical and artistic types. Conant (12:219) recommended
identification of ". . . students who can learn advanced
mathematics, foreign languages, physics and chemistry,'1 and
would include 15-20 per cent of the school population.
Levenson (56:130) concluded that current tests are not
equally efficient in determining high levels of ability in
various social classes and proposed that the best students
in each school or class be identified for special develop
ment, regardless of level.
Gallagher (31) conducted a study for the State of
Illinois which was designed to assist in forming legisla
tion related to gifted children. He summarized current
practice indicating that individual intelligence tests are
the best method of identification but are expensive in the
use of professional time and services. Group intelligence
tests are effective for screening, but penalize students
24
with reading disabilities and emotional or motivational
problems. Group achievement tests do not identify under
achieving gifted children and have the same limitations as
group intelligence tests. He reported that teachers'
observations are useful but miss underachievers with moti
vational problems and children with belligerent or apathetic
attitudes toward school. Gallagher concluded that teachers'
observations need to be supplemented with standardized
tests.
Generally, three types of measures have been used
to identify gifted children: intelligence tests, achieve
ment, and teacher judgments. The function of these, and
other measures, as criteria for selection of the gifted
will be examined individually.
Intelligence Tests
The usefulness of intelligence tests and of quanti
tative measures derived from them, such as mental age and
intelligence quotient, has been demonstrated for the past
forty years. Strong support of intelligence tests was
provided by the Educational Policies Commission in 1950 in
the following statement:
We recommend the use of intelligence tests in iden
tifying gifted children and youth, not because they
have been demonstrated to measure accurately the
inner structure or capacities of human personality,
but because they have been found to provide data
from which subsequent behavior of an individual can
be roughly predicted. The accuracy of such predic
tions is far from perfect, but is accurate enough to
25
justify the use of intelligence test scores along
with other criteria in such practical tasks as
identifying gifted students, in making special
provisions for their education, and in counseling
them. Thus, it cannot be claimed that ingelligence
tests have "absolute” validity; but for practical
purposes, they have a useful degree of operational
validity. (22:41)
Carroll (7) stated that while the score a child
earns on a mental test is not a perfect rating, it is the
best that psychologists know how to secure. Chauncey
(8:230) agreed that tests are by no means infallible. He
has stated that they provide a "highly serviceable degree
of accuracy," and that although they do not measure all
dimensions of academic ability, what they do measure seems
clearly and consistently related to academic achievement.
Pegnato and Birch (69:300) measured the effective
ness and efficiency of a number of variables using the
Binet IQ as the criterion measure. The following means of
identification at the Junior High School level were used:
(1) teacher judgments; (2) honor role listing; (3) creative
ability; (4) student council membership; (5) superiority in
mathematics; (6) intelligence test results; and (7) achieve
ment test results. They reported the following:
Method Effectiveness Efficiency
Per cent Per cent
Teachers' judgments 45 27
Honor Roll 72 18
Creativity 10 11
Student Council 14 16
Mathematics 56 28
26
Method Effectiveness Efficiency
Per cent Per cent
Otis Beta Cutting at
115 IQ 92 19
120 IQ 71 27
125 IQ 44 38
130 IQ 22 55
Achievement Test Results 80 22
Pegnato and Birch concluded that group intelligence
tests cannot be relied on as the only method for identifi
cation of the gifted at the Junior High School level. The
combination of a group intelligence test and an achievement
test, however, did locate 97 per cent of all of the gifted.
In contrasting group tests and individual tests, of
intelligence, Gowan and Demos stated:
Most of the disadvantages of individual tests are
also true of group tests, with the added disadvan
tage of less accuracy in prediction and more chance
of distortion of results as a consequence: (1)
reading disability; (2) emotional pressures; (3)
time pressure; and (4) lack of motivation. In fact,
so inaccurate are some group tests with standard
errors of 10 points of IQ score or more, that it
would have been better if the term "IQ Score" had
been reserved for individual tests alone and group
test scores had been reported in percentile bands
or better in deciles or stanines. The great
advantage of group tests is their speed, economy,
and ease of administration. In addition, they are,
under proper circumstances and under an integrated
testing program where comparable scores may be
inspected, fairly good predictors of future academic
achievement. (37:277)
Gowan and Demos (37:281) pointed out that as a
result of the disadvantages of group tests and the growing
interest in the broader definitions of giftedness there has
been an increasing movement away from the group intelligence
27
test as the sole or even predominant instrument of identi
fication and a trend toward more emphasis on other methods.
Blosser (4:285) tested the relative usefulness of
group tests for identifying gifted students at the ninth-
grade level. His study, a replication and elaboration of
the Pegnato procedure, attempted to determine the effi
ciency and effectiveness of the Otis, Henmon-Nelson, DAT
Verbal, Numerical, and Total Battery. The criterion meas
ure was a Stanford-Binet score of 136 or higher. The tests
were administered to 294 ninth-graders, and the 1960
Stanford-Binet Intelligence test was given to 187 of these
students. The Henmon-Nelson IQ score of 125 had the high
est efficiency rating (the ratio of gifted identified to
the total number selected by the screening method). Group
test efficiency tended to be about one-quarter; that is to
say, group tests located four times as many students as
later proved gifted using the Stanford-Binet criterion.
All measures fell far short of complete efficiency and
suggested that any type of screening device will identify
as gifted far more youngsters than would qualify by indi
vidual intelligence test standards.
Gowan and Demos (37:277) listed the following
advantages of individual tests:
(1) They bring the psychometrist face to face with
the child under ideal conditions in an interview
type situation where a direct observation may be
made on rapport and validity.
28
(2) They reduce the difficulties attendant upon poor
reading skills; they reduce time pressures.
(3) They are probably the single most feasible way
of identifying ability in an individual.
Their report also pointed out the major disadvan
tages of the individual tests as including: (1) time and
cost, (2) restricted sampling of intelligence which may not
identify those who are especially creative, (3) lack of
culture fairness because of class bias, and (4) loading in
favor of verbal ability which may fail to identify a
student talented in other abilities.
Examination of criterion levels on intelligence
tests reveals a great lack of agreement on the statistical
definition of superior ability. Some writers identify the
gifted in the upper one per cent of the school population,
while others include the upper 15 to 20 per cent or more.
The following definitions of superiority are given by
Smaltz and Mathisen (80:37):
(1) The gifted pupil--an all-inclusive term referring
to the upper 15 per cent of the school population.
The intellectually superior, talented, skillful,
and able leader.
(2) The intellectually superior— those endowed with
highly superior mental ability who score an IQ
of 135 or above on an individual intelligence
test administered by a qualified psychologist.
(3) The talented--those children who have special
scientific, musical, artistic, dramatic, dancing,
or writing ability.
(4) The skillful--those with special ability in
physical or mechanical skills.
29
(5) Leadership ability--those who show particular
ability in social skills and ability to work
with and to lead others.
In a comprehensive review of the literature related
to programs for mentally gifted minors Duncan (21:41)
stated that disagreement has been found among authorities
regarding the minimum IQ score that should be required to
identify a student as gifted, and also regarding the per
centage of the total school population who should be iden
tified as gifted. For example, he said children who make
very high scores on intelligence tests are commonly, and
properly regarded as intellectually gifted. But, he asked,
how high is "very high," observing that some authorities
use the term gifted to designate only those whose IQ's
exceed 170, and these cases occurred so infrequently that
most schools enroll no students thus identified.
The Educational Policies Commission of the National
Education Association reported:
It is more common to use an IQ of 140 as the divid
ing line to separate the gifted from the general
population. This follows the practice of Terman,
whose long-range study of gifted individuals has
had unparalleled influence since its initiation in
1921. Six-tenths of one percent of the population
have IQ's of 140 or above; that is, one person out
of 167 is identified as gifted by this criterion.
In contrast with such highly selective designation
is the custom of some (educators) to classify every
pupil with an IQ in excess of 112 or 115 as gifted.
(24:3)
Kincaid (52:1) indicated that there seemed to be a
trend in schools toward consideration of the academically
gifted in terms of three broad areas. First are those of
110-115 IQ and up who might be termed the "most capable" or
the "academically talented" group. Second are the academ
ically or "intellectually gifted" of about 130 IQ and
higher, the upper 2 to 3 per cent of the population.
Finally, there are the "highly gifted" of about 160 IQ and
above. These pupils constitute one among 10,000 pupils and
require a highly individualized program.
As examples of the range of IQ criteria used, the
California Elementary School Administrators Association
(6:55) found in their review of special programs for the
gifted that the minimum IQ score required of participating
students ranged from 100 to 160. Barbe and Norris (2:55)
reported the minimum IQ score required for the Cleveland
major work classes was 125. The Educational Policies
Commission (23:27), in a 1955 report, recommended that
among the several factors to be considered in identifying
gifted students there be an IQ score of 137 or above.
Similar diversity is apparent when an attempt is
made to identify a percentage of the population as gifted.
Cowan (2:248) defined the gifted to mean those in the top
2 per cent of the general population or those equivalent to
an IQ above 129 on the 1937 Stanford-Binet. Conant (13:62)
defined gifted students as those students of high ability
who constitute on a national basis about 3 per cent of the
population.
DeHaan and Havighurst provided a broader definition
31
Those children may be considered "gifted" who are in
the top ten per cent of their age group (IQ 120 or
above) in one or more of the following areas: (a)
general intellectual ability, (b) ability in such
areas as science, mechanics, social leadership, and
human relationships, (c) talent in creative arts.
Laycock (54:11) defined gifted as children who
possess a high degree of general intelligence or high
intellectual ability. He included the top 5 per cent of
the population in this group of children having an IQ of
126 or above.
Gowan (37:280) reported on a survey of eighty-two
California Elementary Districts which was conducted in
1957. The following IQ cut-offs for programs were identi
f ied:
Cumulative
IQ Cut-off Number Per Cent Per Cent
110 9 11 11
115 5 6 17
120 15 18 37
125 18 22 57
130 16 20 77
135 6 7 84
140 12 15 99
148 1 1 100
School principals in Robinson's study (72) stated
that the existing criterion was 123 but recommended 126.
When asked a similar question on percentile rank on a
32
standardized achievement test, their mean responses were
ninetieth and ninety-second percentile for existing and
recommended criteria, respectively. When asked what per
centage of the student body qualified, their mean response
concerning both existing and recommended practice was 5 per
cent.
Freehill presented a convincing argument for a low
minimum IQ score requirement in the following statement:
In light of what little is known concerning how to
deal differently with the gifted and very gifted,
and in light of the great social need for trained
intelligence, it would seem presumptuous for most
schools to set a criterion score much above IQ 120.
(30:1060
Cosgrove (15:7) reported that 62 per cent of the
Ph.D.'s granted in 1958 in the Physical Sciences and 82 per
cent of those who received the third-level research degree
in the Biological Sciences would not have been admitted to
the gifted program for high school students in California
under present State law.
According to Gowan and Demos (37:271) a value judg
ment must be made by a school district on where it wants to
make a cut in IQ score range and what the district means by
"gifted child." They claimed it is obvious that the defi
nition and the place where the cut is made will have a
considerable effect on the program offered.
33
Teacher Judgment
While it is not likely that tests of intelligence
significantly overestimate capacity, errors of measurement
can result in underestimation for a variety of reasons.
Because of this, teacher judgments often are used to iden
tify students who appear to be gifted or talented in ways
or to a degree not shown by test performance.
The National Education Association reported that
teacher judgment was virtually the only means of identify
ing students' abilities in 1900, adding, "It was useful
then, and it is still useful as one of several means of
identifying the gifted." They also cautioned, however,
that the usefulness of teachers' judgments was limited:
One teacher may rate Susan as bright while another
teacher calls her mediocre. Some teachers over
rate the intelligence of children who are neat,
pretty, obedient, friendly, or talkative. A child
who does what is expected of him wins his teachers'
"approval," whereas the child who is independent in
his thought or behavior or asks embarrassing ques
tions may antagonize his teachers; yet, originality
and curiosity are characteristics of superior
intelligence. (24:1)
According to Carrol (7) teachers often err in judg
ments because of subjective factors, a lack of standard of
comparison, and a failure to consider chronological age.
The Educational Policies Commission (24:1) added another
item: confusion of school achievement with intelligence.
Norton (67:105) listed other sources of error:
(1) judging conformity as a mark of superiority; (2)
34
confusion of school achievement with intelligence; (3)
under-rating pupils who manifest independent behavior,
display marked curiosity, and seek alternative ways of
doing things; and (4) failure to perceive that some young
people hide their talents rather than be considered a
’’ brain."
Holland (48:223) conducted a study comparing
teacher ratings with aptitude and achievement test scores
and personal characteristics. In reviewing his results and
comparing them with studies of teacher ratings and creativ
ity measures, he concluded that teacher ratings potentially
are more useful in the prediction of academic achievement
than in the prediction of creativity in high school
students.
Teacher judgments historically have been useful in
identifying gifted or talented children, particularly when
combined with other criteria. There is substantial agree
ment, however, that personal-social factors and varying
standards of judgment make this a less useful method than
measurement by standardized tests.
Creativity
With earth and space problems requiring inventive
solutions by behavioral and physical scientists, and with a
renaissance of the arts, twentieth-century living has
stimulated research in a new category of giftedness--
35
creativity. To some this has meant an extrapolation of
older work with intelligence; to others it has meant chart
ing a new dimension of human traits. In either case, there
is an expanding concept of human excellence which has
altered significantly the traditional views of the scope of
education in America. Concern with content is giving way
to concern with process; concern with established informa
tion is giving way to concern with an open system which
stimulates further discovery.
In his discussion of the open and closed systems in
education, Anderson has defined the impersonal closed
system in the following manner:
In education the closed system is concerned very
little with originality or invention by the student.
It is concerned mainly with acquiring a body of
knowledge, memorizing of facts, and finding answers
to problems— all of which are already known to
someone else. (1:1)
He adds that mental testing is an area of psychological
activity which typifies the closed system:
Practically all intelligence, ability, and achieve
ment tests represent closed-system performance. In
these tests the ideal performance is conformity to
the examiner's norms, to his standards of excel
lence, his criteria of desirable or even of useful
behavior . . . we are just beginning to discover the
meaning and the limitations of the closed system in
our past endeavors in psychological testing. For
twenty years we have known that there is something
beyond an IQ of 140 that is important for productiv
ity. But for twenty years we have known that it is
not additional IQ points that make the difference.
Creativity adds little to the child's IQ score. In
Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius the subjects were
selected on the basis of their performance on
closed-system "normative" tests with answers in the
36
back of the test manual. In retrospect it is not
surprising that the children in Terman's study,
while developing into intellectually competent
adults, have not distinguished themselves by their
great originality in the arts and sciences. These
"geniuses" were selected not on the basis of a
demonstrated originality or uniqueness in their
responses but on the basis of their swift and
superior conformity in cultural norms’ ! £l:2)
Guilford (44:19) agreed, saying that education as a
whole has concentrated too much on convergent thinking; it
has focused on teaching the student how to reach answers
that society considers correct.
Metfessel (64:1) stated:
. . . our traditional intelligence tests sample only
a relatively small portion of the factors which are
involved in intellectual potential. These tests
emphasize abstract thinking and reasoning ability.
They have placed a premium on verbal comprehension
and speed of response. They have insisted on the one
right answer to the complete neglect of original,
creative thinking. If we wish to recognize all
intellectual potential, we must re-examine our meas
uring instruments with a view to revision and modi
fication.
Although there is some concern over a limited
concept of intelligence in understanding individual differ
ences in cognitive functioning, most investigators hypothe
size a new dimension rather than an extension of the old.
Wallach and Kogan (97:1), for example, stated that the term
"creativity" represented an aspect of thinking which is as
important to assess in its own right as is intelligence.
Scheifele (75) actually postulated creativity as the
cardinal characteristic of giftedness.
On the other hand, Eisner saw creativity as part of
37
an extended definition of intelligence:
I have discussed creativity and intelligence, but
this is mainly because I have followed terms used in
the research. However, I reject a distinction
between these concepts. If our conception of intel
ligence were more adequate, if we conceived intelli
gence not merely as what intelligence tests test but
as the efficient and effective utilization of means
to achieve desired ends, then the need for a separate
concept of creativity disappears. In short, I am
suggesting that the reason creativity and intelli
gence seemed to be unrelated is that we have been
using in our research a restricted conception and
measure of intelligence. (27:375)
A basic question is whether intelligence and
creativity can be described more accurately as sharing a
common psychological function.
Systematic efforts to develop instruments for
identifying children who will become the solvers of prob
lems in a world of spiraling complexity are in progress.
Tests without predetermined "correct” answers have been
devised and are coming into use. Their relationship to
traditional measures and some conclusions about their
utility in identifying creative persons are reviewed
briefly in the following discussion.
Studies reported here relate to two basic
questions: The relationship between intelligence and
creativity, and the hypothesized multiple properties of
creativity. As many studies explored both questions, they
are considered together.
Kneller (53:9) reported that high IQ is necessary
but not sufficient for creativity. He stated that the
38
highly creative person seems to belong to the upper tenth
in intelligence. He estimated an IQ of 120 is generally
necessary for high creativity. He concluded that the IQ
levels approximately 135 currently used in most programs
for intellectually gifted children probably exclude many
creative students.
Yamamoto (100:304) has reported that although few
significant coefficients of correlation have been found in
studies involving IQ and creativity, that with corrections
for explicit selection and unreliability of measures they
may be as high as .88. Lower correlation with higher IQ
groups supports a "threshold of intelligence" concept. He
agreed with Torrance (96:63) that above an IQ of 120,
intelligence does not affect creative thinking abilities.
Cicirelli did not agree with the conclusions of
Torrance and Yamamoto. He (10:303) investigated two
hypotheses concerning: (1) interaction between creativity
and IQ as they affect achievement, and (2) IQ thresholds
where creativity begins to affect achievement and where IQ
itself has no further effect. Scores on the California
Test of Mental Maturity, Gates Basic Reading, California
Tests of Arithmetic and Language, and Minnesota Tests of
Creative Thinking were obtained for 609 sixth-graders. He
reported that, in general, the hypotheses of interaction
and thresholds were not supported.
Price (70) investigated creativity in relation to
39
IQ with groups of students aged twelve and fifteen classi
fied by three IQ levels: 100, 130, and 148+. The
Stanford-Binet Test was used as the measure of intelligence
and five of the Guilford tests of divergent thinking. She
concluded that IQ is associated with divergent thinking
over a wide range of ability and considered the results to
support the use of a cut-off point of 130 IQ for screening
in the selection of potentially creative people.
Possible validity of an upper cut-off IQ for pre
diction of creativity may be inferred from a pilot investi
gation conducted by Metfessel, Handler, and Hall (65).
Twelve junior high school students who had scored above
170 IQ (highly gifted) on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scale (Form L) were matched on personal and academic
characteristics with twelve students who scored 140 to 155
IQ (gifted) on the same test. The Wide Range Achievement
and the following Guilford tests were administered to both
groups: Different Uses, Match Problems, Consequences
(Obvious), and Consequences (Remote). The highly gifted
group was significantly superior on measures of reading and
arithmetic, while the gifted group was significantly
superior on all measures of creativity except the Match
Problems Test, on which the highly gifted scored signifi
cantly higher.
Rothrock (74:133) reported on her study to investi
gate the creative abilities of 245 gifted seventh- and
40
eighth-grade students in twelve schools in the Torrance,
California school district. Pupils were classified accord
ing to scores on the California Test of Mental Maturity as
follows: (1) academically talented, IQ 116 and over; (2)
gifted, IQ 132 and over; and (3) highly gifted, IQ of 148
and over. The same battery of Guilford Tests of Creativity
employed in the present investigation was administered to
the three groups. No significant relationship between
levels of intelligence as defined, and creative abilities
was observed.
Wallach and Kogan (97:2) suggested that if one dis
cusses creativity and intelligence as if the two terms
refer to concepts at the same level of abstraction, one may
be asserting that a concept similar to Spearman's £ exists
in the area of creativity. They raised the question as to
whether or not these two concepts--intelligence and crea
tivity— define dimensions of individual differences that
vary independently of each other or that are at most
minimally related to each other.
Kneller, however, asserted that creativity is not a
unitary quality, stating:
In fact, defined as a mental process, the term
stands for a group of related abilities, such as,
fluency, originality, and flexibility. For example,
in response to tests, some people show themselves
to be primarily fluent, some mainly original,* and
so forth. It is only because these abilities or a
majority of them, are often called into play
together, though in differing degrees, that we are
justified in grouping them in a singler term.
(53:9)
41
Getzels and Jackson (36:25) worked with five proce
dures which they labeled ''creativity tests." They tested a
sample of 292 boys and 241 girls ranging from the sixth
grade to the senior year of high school. An intelligence
test and five creativity tests were administered. The
creativity measures were correlated significantly with IQ
for the boys, and four of the five creativity tests were
correlated significantly with IQ in the case of the girls.
The five tests used by Getzels and Jackson were no
more strongly correlated with one another than they were
with intelligence. Wallach and Kogan (97:3) cited these
data as evidence against a psychological dimension of crea
tivity as existing apart from general intelligence. They
acknowledged another approach to the argument, however,
when they stated:
If, on the other hand, one wishes to propose from
these data that the creativity indices possess much
variance that is distinct from differences in
general intelligence, then one must admit that
these creativity tests are in just about the same
degree independent of one another so that no evi
dence exists for conceiving of a single, unified
dimension that would be appropriately labeled
creativity after the manner of the concept of gen
eral intelligence or £. (97:3)
In 1963 Thorndike analyzed the Getzels and Jackson
data and arrived at the same conclusion as Wallach and
Kogan. He wrote :
It is of some interest to extract a first factor
from this table of correlations and compare the
factor loadings of the several tests . . . the
factor loadings are all fairly modest and the load
42
ing for the conventional intelligence test falls
about midway among the "creativity” tests. (91:47)
Cline, Richards, and Needham (11:188) utilized
California Mental Maturity IQ scores as the index of gen
eral intelligence and explored seven "creativity" measures.
Subjects were 79 male and 40 female high school students.
Inspection of the correlations indicated that six of the
seven creativity measures were correlated significantly
with IQ for the boys, and four of the seven were correlated
significantly with IQ for the girls.
Flescher (29:267) followed up the Getzels and
Jackson research and devised a group of procedures and
measures that were assumed to tap the creativity domain.
For the seven creativity measures used, the average corre
lation with IQ scores derived from the California Test of
Mental Maturity was .04 for a sample of 110 sixth-graders.
The correlation among the seven creativity indices averaged
.11. These findings tended to somewhat contradict the
findings of Cline, Richards, and Needham, and failed to
suggest the existence of a basic dimension shared in common
by creativity assessment devices.
Herr, More, and Hansen (46:114) reported the
results of a study designed to develop descriptive data
resulting from an intensive program with high school
students classified as academically talented. Special
attention was given to the relationship between specific
tests of creative ability and other cognitive measures.
Sixty students who had just completed their junior year in
high school were tested with the Lorge-Thorndike Intelli
gence Test. Creativity was measured by selected Guilford
Tests of Creativity: Alternate Uses; Ideational Fluency;
Consequences (Obvious); and Consequences (Remote). Addi
tional measures included the Terman Concept Mastery Tests,
the A-C Spark Plug Test and the Watson-Glazer Critical
Thinking Appraisal test. The Guilford Tests of Creativity
generally showed no significant correlation with the
several tests of intellectual ability. The possible excep
tion was the test of Ideational Fluency which correlated
.27 with the Lorge-Thorndike. The A-C Spark Plug Test,
however, correlated .54 with the Lorge-Thorndike, .53 with
the Terman Concept Mastery, and .24 with the Watson-Glazer.
The investigators concluded that the data supported the
generalization that intelligence and creativity are not
highly related.
In 1965, Cropley conducted a study (17:80), con
cluding that the data did not support independence of
convergent thinking and divergent thinking. Subjects were
the entire grade seven population of a large metropolitan
junior high school. Of 354 children enrolled, 320 com
pleted the entire test battery. The sample included 170
boys, for whom the mean verbal IQ was 114.7 and 150 girls,
for whom the mean IQ was 113.8.
44
Tests employed in the study included the appropri
ate levels of the Lorge-Thorndike tests of verbal and
non-verbal intelligence. Scores were also obtained on the
following five measures of divergent thinking--Seeing
Problems; Tin Can Uses; Consequences; Symbol Production;
Circles. In general, these tests were taken from the work
of Guilford, although Tin Can Uses and Circles had been
revised and developed by Torrance.
The tests were all administered on the same day and
in the same room to 320 subjects. Every one of the corre
lations obtained between the various tests of divergent
thinking and the two tests of convergent thinking for the
full samples was significant at or beyond the .01 level of
confidence.
Torrance (96:182) from his studies of high school
students reported that a difference of 25.6 IQ points on
the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children had been
established between the highly intelligent group and the
highly creative group in his laboratory school. He noted
that any measure of IQ excludes about 70 per cent of the
most creative children if used alone to identify gifted
ness.
Schmadel, Merrifield, and Bonsall (76:127) in a
study which involved thirty-one sixth-grade pupils identi
fied as gifted using the criterion of Stanford-Binet IQ 130
and above, concluded that children of high ability may be
45
both gifted and creative. They stated it is equally
evident that "creativeness" is not necessarily an attribute
of the •'gifted1 1 child. The creative thinking measures
selected for comparison were: Sensitivity to Problems,
Conceptual Foresight, Ideational Fluency, and Originality.
Yamamoto has conducted a number of studies con
cerned with the relationship between intelligence and
creativity indices developed by Torrance. On the whole,
the relationships obtained have been in the positive
direction and of moderate degree. For example in a high
school population of 272, Yamamoto (101:788) obtained a
correlation of .30 between IQ and index of creativity.
In another examination of the same data (99:282),
high school students ranking within the upper and the lower
20 per cent on the creativity index score were compared in
terms of IQ. The fifty-four high creativity students had a
mean IQ of 125.56, while the fifty-four low creativity
students exhibited a mean IQ of 114.74. The mean differ
ence in IQ between the two groups was significant beyond
the .001 level. The two IQ means were on either side of
the mean IQ of 118.32 for the total sample of 272.
Regardless of the relationship of creativity to
intelligence as traditionally defined, there is strong
evidence that tests of creativity developed by Guilford,
Torrance, Getzels, Jackson and others add new sources of
variance in the measurement of human capabilities.
46
Wallach and Kogan (97:25) maintained that there was
a need (1) to develop or adapt procedures to assess genera
tion and uniqueness of cognitive associations in a variety
of content; (2) to demonstrate that productivity and
uniqueness measures would be correlated regardless of test
ing procedure; and (3) to measure general intelligence with
conventional techniques oriented toward skills in verbal
and numerical performance, and in academic subject matter
areas. They also hoped to demonstrate a high degree of
intercorrelation among these various indices. Their fourth
objective was to determine whether or not interrelation
ships existed between creativity measures on the one hand
and general intelligence indices on the other. They wanted
to be in a position to assert that there exists a unified
common pervasive dimension of cognitive activity which
could be called creativity, and which is relatively inde
pendent of the dimension of general intelligence.
With these objectives in mind they studied 151
fifth-grade pupils (70 boys, 81 girls) in a suburban New
England public school, and reported that the creativity
indicators were largely independent of individual differ
ences in general intelligence. The relative orthogonality
of creativity and intelligence had been demonstrated at an
age level well below that which one would expect maximum
differentiation of types of cognitive performances (97:65).
In addition, Wallach and Kogan indicated that
47
attempts to measure creativity should proceed in an evalua
tion free context, unfettered by such forms of pressure as
the imposition of time limits. They stated:
Working with a sample of 151 fifth grade children,
we have obtained evidence that creativity as herein
defined— the ability to generate many cognitive
associates and many that are unique— is strikingly
independent of the conventional round of general
intelligence, while at the same time being a unitary
and pervasive dimension of individual differences in
its own right. This evidence holds for members of
both sexes. We can assert with high confidence,
then, that the ability of a child to display crea
tivity as we here conceive of it, has little to do
with whether or not he exhibits the behavior that
will earn him high scores on measures of general
intelligence. (97:64)
Multiple Criteria
The unitary concept of giftedness has given way to
a multiple criterion approach, with the objective of iden
tifying efficiently and effectively children with a variety
of high capabilities and talents. Stalnaker (83:24) warned
that mental organization is complex and that important
differences in human ability are obscured by single
measures,
The American Association for Gifted Children
(86:230) sometime ago argued that qualities other than IQ
be included in the conception of giftedness. They sug
gested many of the same criteria as Havighurst (45).
In 1965 Guilford recommended that aptitude testing
at the secondary level be revised to include information
concerning each student's developmental status in a number
48
of the intellectual abilities. He also stated:
Above all, the children labeled as "gifted" should
not be only the ones with high IQ and achievement
records. High academic aptitude of the traditional
kind appears to be a necessary condition for crea
tive performance, at least in tests of a verbal
kind; but high IQ is by no means a sufficient
condition for creative performance. There must be
other indications as well. And we have yet to
determine the need for high IQ in connection with
excellence in creative performance in the non-verbal
areas. (40:58)
Shertzer also (79:113) supported the use of many
types of evidence, declaring that educators have yet to
develop a single faultless measuring instrument for identi
fying gifted students. Freehill (30:78) agreed that
superior intelligence is manifested in many ways and cannot
be measured adequately on any single instrument. He stated
that the argument for multi-observations, which include
those of teachers and parents, as well as the use of stand
ardized tests, often finds support because this method
appears as a kind of a compromise. In reality, however,
Freehill maintained that such a method is not a compromise,
but a necessity for adequate assessment of ability.
Sumption, Norris, and Terman (88:262), reporting on
a study of three methods of identifying gifted students
(standardized tests, teacher judgment, and classroom
performance), concluded the three methods supplemented each
other and, together, provided an excellent means of identi
fication. Both formal and informal methods of identifica
tion were recommended by Sumption and Lueeking (87:42).
49
Marks, intelligence tests, achievement tests, aptitude
tests, socio-metric tests, interest inventories, and cumu
lative record data were examples of formal methods.
Parental observations and teacher observations were men
tioned as informal methods.
Chauncey (9:29) stated that test scores and school
marks together predict more accurately than either one
separately. There is greatest expectancy of future aca
demic success by pupils who rank high on both predictors,
with expectancy of success somewhat lower than for those
who rank high on one predictor only and least for those who
rank low on both. Also, each predictor identifies some
future high achievers who are not identified by the other.
Edwards and Tyler (26:96) investigated relation
ships among creativity, scholastic aptitude, and school
achievement at the junior high school level. Two of the
Minnesota Tests of Creativity, Incomplete Figures and
Unusual Uses, along with the School and College Ability
Tests (SCAT) and the Sequential Tests of Educational
Progress (STEP) were administered to 181 ninth-graders.
The investigators reported the correlation between SCAT and
creativity scores to be .08, the two creativity tests .36,
and SCAT and STEP scores .86. They considered their most
important conclusion to be that ”... time-honored tests
of scholastic aptitude have not been made obsolete by
recent research on creativity."
50
Application of multiple criteria for the identifi
cation of gifted or talented children has increased
considerably in complexity and technical sophistication
over the last forty-five years. Terman in the early 1920's
used a direct and simple approach: Children to whom the
Stanford Binet was administered were identified initially
by teacher judgment. By the late 1920's and the 1930's
Kelley (50, 51), Thomson (90), and Thurstone (92, 94) were
developing factor theory and in the 1940's textbooks on
applications and statistical methodology by Holzinger and
Harman (49), Thurstone (93) and others were published.
Since 1950 attention to multifactor approaches to defining
and measuring intellectual functions has increased
steadily, largely under the leadership of J. P. Guilford,
using factor analysis procedures.
Guilford (38:290) questioned in 1956 the usefulness
of the traditional concept of intelligence, saying that the
term "intelligence" had never been uniquely or satisfac
torily defined. He was concerned with the nature of
intelligence testing. He wrote that factor analyses had
fairly well demonstrated that intelligence is not a unique,
unitary phenomenon, that a "general factor" found by what
ever method varies from one analysis to another and hence
is not a unity independent of research circumstances.
Methods of multiple factor analyses do not find the general
psychological factor at the first-order or second-order
51
level that properly can be labeled as general intelligence.
Guilford proposed to specify a number of intelli-
gences--intelligence A, intelligence B, and so on. He
maintained that this could be done in terms of discrete
factors of intellect. An important point he noted was that
when several factors are present in a test score based upon
all the items, the score represents each component only to
a small degree. For example, an IQ from a test whose com
ponents are predominantly verbal, is a total score heavily
dominated by the verbal-comprehension factor. This leaves
the other factors with little or no effective voice in the
composite, even though they are represented in the scale.
He also predicted that the factorial composition of the
Binet IQ would be found to vary somewhat among age levels.
This feature could contribute to changes in IQ where sub
stantial age differences are involved.
In 1959 The American Psychologist (39:469) pub
lished a landmark document. It presented Guilford's model
of the Structure of Intellect; a system in which factors
can be classified by similarities and differences along
three dimensions which he called operations, products, and
content (Figure 1).
This classification identified five groups of
intellectual operations: cognition, memory, convergent
thinking, divergent thinking, and evaluation. Guilford
hypothesized that divergent production is a differential
52
FIGURE 1
M odel of the S tr u c tu r e o f In te lle c t
O PE R A T IO N S
C ognition
M e m o ry
D iv e r g e n t P ro d u c tio n
C o n v e rg e r
E valuatio n
r g e n t Prod uction *
P R O D U C T S
Unite
C la e s e s
R e la tio n s
S y s te m s "
T r a n s f o r m a tio n s
Im p lic a tio n s
CO N T EN TS
F ig u r a l
S y m bo lic
Sem antTF
D efin itio n s of C a te g o r ie s in the S tr u c t u r e of In te lle c t
O PE RA T IO N S - - M ajor k in d s of in tellectu a l a c tiv itie s o r p r o c e s s e s ; things that the o r g a n i s m does w ith the ra w m a te r i a ls of in
fo rm a tio n . *
C ognition - - I m m e d ia te d is c o v e r y , a w a r e n e s s , re d i s c o v e r y , o r re c o g n itio n of in fo rm a tio n in v a rio u s f o rm s ; c o m p re h e n s io n
o r u n d e rs ta n d in g .
M e m o ry - - R etention o r s to r a g e , w ith s o m e d e g re e of a v a ila b ility , of in fo rm a tio n in the s a m e fo r m in w h ich it was c o m m i t
ted to s to r a g e an d in r e s p o n s e to the s a m e cu e s in co n n e ctio n w ith w h ich it w as le a rn e d .
D iv e rg e n t p rodu ction - - G e n e r a tio n of in fo rm a tio n f r o m given in fo rm a tio n , w h e re the e m p h a s is is upon v a r ie ty and quantity of
output f r o m the sam e s o u r c e . L ikely to Involve w h at h a s b ee n ca lled tr a n s f e r .
C o n v e rg e n t pro d u ctio n - - G e n e r a tio n of in fo rm a tio n f r o m given in fo rm a tio n , w h e re the e m p h a s is is upon ac h iev in g uniq ue o r
co n v e n tio n ally a c c e p te d b e s t o u tc o m es. It Is likely th a t the given (cue) in fo rm a tio n fully d e t e r m i n e s the r e s p o n s e .
E v a lu atio n - - R each ing d e c is io n s o r m a k in g ju d g m e n ts c o n c e rn in g the g o od ness ( c o r r e c tn e s s , su ita b ility , ad e q u acy , d e s i r a
bility . e t c .) of in fo rm atio n In te r m s of c r i t e r i a of Identity, c o n s is te n c y , a n d goal s a tisfa c tio n .
CO N T EN TS - - B ro a d c l a s s e s of in fo rm a tio n .
F i g u r a l content - - In f o rm a tio n in c o n c re te fo rm , a s p e r c e iv e d o r a s re c a lle d in the f o r m of im a g e s . The t e r m "fig u ra l" i m
p lie s s o m e d e g r e e of o rg a n iz a tio n o r s tr u c tu r in g . D iffe re n t s e n s e m o d a litie s m a y be involved, e .g . , v isu al,
au d ito ry , k in e s th e tic .
S y m bo lic content - - In f o rm a tio n in the f o r m of sig n s, havin g no s ig n ific a n c e in and of th e m s e lv e s , su ch as l e t t e r s , n u m b e r s ,
m u s ic a l n o ta tio n s , and o th e r "co de" e le m e n ts .
S e m a n tic content - - In f o r m a tio n in the f o r m of m e a n in g s to w hich w o rd s co m m o n ly b e c o m e a ttach e d , h e n c e m o s t n o ta b le in
v e r b a l th ink ing and in v e r b a l c o m m u n ic atio n .
B e h a v io ra l co n ten t - - In fo rm a tio n , e s s e n ti a ll y n o n -v e r b a l, involved in hum an in te r a c tio n s , w h e re a w a r e n e s s of the a ttitu d e s ,
n e e d s, d e s i r e s , m o ods, in ten tio n s, p e rc e p tio n s , tho u g h ts, etc. , of o th e r p e r s o n s and of o u r s e lv e s is im p o rta n t.
P R O D U C T S - - F o r m s th a t in fo rm atio n ta k e s in the o r g a n i s m 's p r o c e s s in g of it.
U n its - - R e la tiv e ly s e g r e g a te d o r c i r c u m s c r i b e d ite m s of in fo rm a tio n having "th in g " c h a r a c te r . May b e c lo se to G e s ta l t
p s y c h o lo g y 's " fig u re on a g ro u n d . "
C la s s e s - - R e c o g n iz e d s e t s of ite m s of in fo rm atio n g ro u p ed by v ir tu e of th e ir co m m o n p r o p e r t ie s .
R elatio n s - - R e c o g n iz e d conn e ctio n s b e tw e e n units of in fo rm a tio n b a s e d upon v a r ia b le s o r po ints of c o n tact th a t apply to them .
S y ste m s "’ - - O rg a n iz e d o r s tr u c t u r e d a g g r e g a te s of ite m s of Info rm atio n ; c o m p le x e s of in t e r r e la te d o r in te ra c tin g p a r t s .
T r a n s fo r m a tio n s - - C h a n g e s of v a rio u s k in d s of e x is tin g o r know n in fo rm a tio n o r in Its u se.
im p lic atio n s - - E x tr a p o la tio n s of In fo rm a tio n , in the f o r m of e x p e c ta n c ie s , p r e d ic tio n s , known o r s u s p e c te d a n te c e d e n ts , c o n
c o m ita n ts , o r c o n s e q u e n c e s .
* " In fo rm a tio n " Is defined a s " th a t w hich th e o r g a n is m d is c r i m in a te s . 1
J. P. Guilford, and R. Hoepfner. "Current Summary of Structure-of-
Intellect Factors and Suggested Tests," Reports from the Psychological Laboratory.
University of Southern California, Number 30, 1963.
53
aspect of intelligence, and is particularly important in
predicting creativity. Reports from the Psychological
Laboratory, University of Southern California (34, 41, 42,
63), support these hypotheses. In 1961 Guilford added,
". . . The redefinition abilities, which are in the conver
gent production category of the Structure of Intellect, are
also of much importance in creative thinking” (42:5).
Guilford stated that,
although factor analysis as generally employed is
best designed to investigate ways in which individ
uals differ from one another, in other words, to
discover traits, the results also tell us much about
how individuals are alike. Consequently, information
regarding the factors and their interrelationships
give us understanding of the functional style of
individuals. The five kinds of intellectual abili
ties in terms of operations may be said to represent
five ways of functioning. (39:477)
He added that assessment of intellect in individuals may
require a surprisingly large number of scores. Measures of
many of the factors, however, are expected to be intercor
related, so there is some possibility that by appropriate
sampling it will be possible to cover the important abili
ties with a limited number of tests (39:477).
Guilford does not perceive his model as a closed
system. He concluded, in the 1959 article:
The Structure of Intellect as I have presented it to
you may or may not stand the test of time. Even if
the general form persists, there are likely to be
some modifications. Possibly some different kind of
model will be invented. Be that as it may, the fact
of a multiplicity of intellectual abilities seems
well established. (39:479)
54
Chapter Summary
Definitions of giftedness and talent have expanded
and been clarified as attention has been focused on devel
oping methods of identification beginning with Terman's
Studies of Genius in the 1920's.
A wide range of criteria has been used to identify
gifted children including intelligence tests, teacher judg
ments, tests of creativity, and multiple criteria.
The usefulness of intelligence tests in identifying
the gifted has been demonstrated over a period of forty
years. Teacher judgments have been used over an even
longer period of time, but are considered less useful than
standardized tests for a variety of reasons. Twentieth-
century living has stimulated research into the new cate
gory of giftedness-creativity. Research has shown that
creativity tests developed in the last twenty years by
Guilford and others measure traits which may be related to
but are not identical with abilities measured by tests of
intelligence.
The unitary concept of giftedness has given way to
a multiple criterion approach, with the objective of iden
tifying efficiently and effectively children with a variety
of high capabilities and talents. Application of multiple
criteria for the identification of gifted or talented
children has increased considerably in complexity and
55
technical sophistication over the last forty-five years from
Terman to Guilford: from a single cutting score on one test
to factor analytic solutions to identifying vectors along
which individuals are different and alike, and an increas
ing understanding of functional styles of individuals.
With 120 separate factors hypothesized by Guilford's
Structure of Intellect it is clear that a large number of
measures may be required for assessment of intellect.
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE
This chapter reports the procedures used in con
ducting the study. The information is presented in five
major sections.
The first section provides a brief description of
the characteristics of the school district in which the
investigation was conducted.
The second section reviews the approach used to
identify and involve the schools and classes that partici
pated in the research.
The next two sections describe the tests and
instruments employed and the nature of the data collected
from the cumulative records.
The last section sets forth the manner in which the
data were analyzed.
The School District
The study was conducted in the Los Angeles City
Unified School District in 1965. The term "Los Angeles
City Schools” is somewhat misleading as actually the Los
56
57
Angeles system is approximately twice as large in area
as the City of Los Angeles. City limits of Los Angeles
enclose an area totaling approximately 463 square miles;
the Los Angeles City School District, which includes the
Junior College District, encompasses approximately 881
square miles.
At the time of the study the District (62:1)
reported the following enrollment figures:
Number of
Level Schools Enrollment
Elementary 429 360,564
Junior High 70 131,607
Senior High 53 124,914
Junior College 7 76,221
Adult Schools 28 79,324
Schools for
Handicapped 13 3JL87
Total 600 775,817
Sample Selection
The study was conducted in the twelve senior high
schools which offered Advanced Placement classes in the
Spring Semester, 1965, and was limited to A-12 students.
The Advanced Placement Program is an activity of the
College Entrance Examination Board and provides for college
level courses taught on the high school campus by qualified
58
high school teachers. Participating students may achieve
high school graduation credit for successful completion of
the courses. Advanced standing credit and/or advanced
college placement may also be achieved by students who
elect to take and are successful in the Advanced Placement
Examinations administered through the Educational Testing
Service at the participating high schools.
Student eligibility for Advanced Placement classes
was determined by the following L.A. City criteria for
Honors classes:
1. Recommendations of principals, counselors and
teachers.
and
2. Demonstrated high competence and potential in
the subject field background necessary for
participation in the Honors classes.
and
3. Either of the following qualifications :
a. Consistent measured academic achievement at
least two years above grade placement as
measured by standardized test or measured
academic achievement at the 95th percentile,
or higher on a test which is interpreted in
percentiles.
b. An intelligence quotient of approximately
130 or higher as determined by a group
mental test, or from a psychological study,
or an intelligence quotient at least two
standard deviations above the mean for the
test used. (60:2)
All students enrolled in the classes who qualified
by the following state criteria for selection were reported
to the State, but the State criteria were not mandatory for
59
placement in an Advanced Placement class:
(1) A score on an individual intelligence test, such
as the Revised Stanford-Binet Scale, Form L-M,
representing an intelligence quotient of 130 or
above, administered by a person credentialed for
this purpose by the State Board of Education.
[or]
(2) A score at or above the 98th percentile on a
group test of mental ability and a score at or
above the 98th percentile on a standardized test
of reading achievement or arithmetic achieve
ment, eacn test having been administered within
a period of no more than 36 months of the date
of identification. Beginning July 1, 1963, the
tests used for this purpose must be chosen from
a list of tests approved by the State Board of
Education under the provisions of Education Code
Section 12821.
[or]
(3) The judgments of teachers, psychologists, and
school administrators and supervisors who are
familiar with the demonstrated ability of the
minors provided that not more than three (3)
per cent of the pupils for whom an excess cost
reimbursement is claimed shall be identified
on such judgments alone. (84)
Each Advanced Placement class contained students
who met the L.A, Gifted criteria and the State Gifted
criteria, and students who met the L.A. Gifted criteria but
did not meet the State Gifted criteria.
IBM listings of students who had been reported in
the State Gifted Program for 1964-65 were obtained for each
of the twelve schools which offered Advanced Placement
classes. Class lists for the thirty-seven Advanced Place
ment classes were prepared by the teachers. Each class
list was studied to identify A-12 students who had been
60
reported in the 1964-65 State Gifted Program. The decision
to include a given class in the study was based on the
following criteria:
1. At least 50 per cent of the students in the
class were in grade A-12.
2. At least 50 per cent of the A-12 students in
each class had been identified for the State
Gifted Program.
Each school had at least one class which did meet
the criteria; a total of twenty-seven of the thirty-seven
classes met the criteria.
Permission was obtained from the Associate Superin
tendent of the Secondary Division to contact the Area
Assistant Superintendents and obtain approval to invite
each of the twelve principals to participate in the study.
The investigator met with each principal to describe the
purpose and procedures of the investigation. All of the
principals were supportive and granted permission to the
investigator to proceed with the study.
District Advanced Placement classes and those
included in the study are listed as follows:
Subject
English
French
Number in
District
Number in
Study
11 8
1 1
Spanish
Analytic Geometry
and Calculus
5 4
11 7
European History
Total
9 7
37 27
The investigator met with the head counselors and
Advanced Placement teachers to describe the study and
request voluntary participation. All head counselors and
Advanced Placement teachers approved and elected to assist
in the investigation.
Data collection was simplified by administering the
Creativity Tests and Student Questionnaires to all of the
students enrolled in the twenty-seven classes in the twelve
schools. Cumulative record data were not collected for the
twenty-three A-11 students and the twenty B-12 students who
were in the classes.
The number of A-12 students in the initial sample
was 438. Cumulative record data were incomplete for
twenty-nine students, fifteen of the students were absent
for all or part of the Creativity Test periods, and four of
the pupils chose not to continue early in the testing
period. Data collection was completed for 390 of the 438
62
students. A review of the characteristics of the A-12
students not included in the final data analysis did not
suggest significant patterns which would affect the
research outcomes. There were 227 students who met the
State Gifted criteria as well as the L.A. Gifted criteria
and 163 students who met the L.A. Gifted criteria but not
the State Gifted criteria.
Tests and Instruments
Creativity Tests
The creativity measures used in the study were
developed by J. P. Guilford and utilized in Project Poten
tial, a research project sponsored by a grant from the
U. S. Office of Education and conducted by N. S. Metfessel
at the University of Southern California. The theoretical
model upon which the Project Potential staff selected the
tests was based on the postulate that creativity has six
major components. Risser developed brief definitions of
these components based on the work of Guilford. Five of
the six were appropriate for this study and are given below
with the definition of the sixth taken from a Guilford
report.
Fluency of Thinking--The ability to produce ideas
that fit into a specified class when quantity, not
quality, is emphasized is referred to as Fluency
of Thinking.
63
Flexibility of Thinking— This term includes the
ability to change mental set in order to develop
new meanings, designs, interpretations, or uses
of something.
Propensity for Elaboration--The facility to trans
form an incomplete stimulus into a recognizable
unity is described as Propensity for Elaboration.
Sensitivity to Problems--The term includes the
ability to recognize practical problems that might
be encountered in performing some task or in using
some common tool.
Originality--The ability to provide clever,
uncommon, or imaginative responses is referred to
as Originality. (71)
Redefinition--The ability to organize parts into
wholes, to synthesize parts into wholes that were
not organized in that way previously. (43:6)
The criteria used by the Project Potential staff to
select tests for the battery were the following: (a) the
degree to which a test conformed to the theoretical model;
(b) the degree to which previous research had shown the
tests to correlate highly with school achievement but low
with other tests of creativity abilities, and (c) the degree
to which the tests appeared to be "culturally fair" (64:2).
These criteria resulted in the selection of tests
for each of the six components as follows:
Test Component
Making Objects and Utility Fluency of Thinking
Test (scored for fluency)
Utility Test (scored for Flexibility of Thinking
flexibility)
Figure Production Propensity for Elaboration
Test Component
Seeing Problems Sensitivity to Problems
Symbol Production Originality
Object Synthesis Redefinition
Table 1 classifies each of the tests within the
"Structure of Intellect" model.
Prior to the administration of the tests, the
following statement was read to each class:
May we congratulate you upon being selected to
participate in the Los Angeles City Schools Creative
Study. Your outstanding school achievement has made
it possible for you to be a participant in this
important study.
The tests you will take are patterned after the
internationally known Guilford Tests of Creativity.
The test items provide an opportunity for you to
express originality, ingenuity, and inventiveness.
The purpose of the study is to help us to guide
and counsel young people like you in the future.
We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this most
worthwhile endeavor.
All of the tests were timed. The total time
required for the administration of the battery was approx
imately sixty-four minutes. Since the average class period
was fifty minutes, it was necessary to administer the tests
in two periods.
The tests were administered and scored by creden-
tialed school psychologists and psychometrists, trained and
assisted by members of the Project Potential staff. Indi
viduals responsible for test administration and scoring did
not have information which would enable them to identify
65
TABLE 1
CLASSIFICATION OF THE CREATIVITY TESTS USING THE
GUILFORD STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT MODEL
Name of Test Class Description
Making Objects DFS Divergent production of
figural systems
Utility Test
(fluency)
DMU Divergent production of
semantic units
Utility Test
(flexibility)
DMC Divergent production of
semantic classes
Figure Production DFI Divergent production of
figural implications
Seeing Problems* EMI Evaluation of semantic
implications
Symbol Production DMT Divergent production of
semantic transformations
Object Synthesis* NMT Convergent production of
semantic transformations
^Although not defined by Guilford as divergent factors,
these are considered by Guilford, Merrifield, and Cox
(42:5) to be important contributors to creative
thinking.
66
State Gifted and L.A. Gifted students.
Student Questionnaire
Students responded to the following questions:
Did your father attend college? Yes__ No_
Did your father graduate from
college? Yes__ No_
Did your mother attend college? Yes__ No_
Did your mother graduate from
college? Yes__ No_
Do you hold an elected student body
or senior class office this
semester? Yes__ No_
Examples: Student Body President,
Student Body Secretary, Senior
Class Treasurer, etc.
If your answer is yes, please indicate the
office you hold.____________________________
Do you hold any other elected
offices in clubs or organiza
tions within or outside of
school this semester?_______________Yes___ No_
If your answer is yes, please
indicate the offices you hold.______________
Are you currently a member of any
clubs or organizations within
or outside of school?_______________Yes___ No_
Examples: Letterman's Club,
Service Club, Y.M.C.A.,
Church Club, etc.
If your answer is yes, please
list the clubs or organiza
tions to which you be long.__
Cumulative Record Data
The cumulative records of the 438 students in the
initial sample were used to collect the following data:
1. Sex.
2. Birthdate.
3. Grade Point Average.
4. Results of the California State Testing Program
administered when the students were in grade
B-ll:
a. Henmon-Nelson Group Intelligence Test
score, a measure of general intellectual
ability (5:342).
b. Cooperative English Vocabulary raw score,
a measure of verbal skill (25:6).
c. Cooperative English Comprehension raw score,
primarily a power score representing level
of reading comprehension (25:6).
d. Cooperative English Speed of Comprehension
raw score, speed of reading and comprehen
sion (25 :6) .
e. Cooperative English Comprehension raw
score, a measure of the effective use of
written expressions and the mechanics of
English (25:7).
68
f. Iowa Tests of Educational Development--
Test 4 raw score, a measure of the ability
to do quantitative thinking (77:18).
In addition, a careful analysis of the cumulative record
data was conducted to assure that students were properly
classified according to Los Angeles Gifted and State Gifted
criteria. The analysis indicated that twenty-two of the
L.A. Gifted group did, in fact, meet the State Gifted
criteria. These students were reclassified and included
in the State Gifted group for the purpose of the study.
An interesting problem was encountered in collect
ing data related to grade point averages. District policy
in regard to the computation of grade point averages read
as follows:
The high school counselor is responsible for
determining the grade-point average and approximate
rank in class for each A-12 pupil. Most of these
computations may be done by the credit clerk under
the supervision of the counselor. To determine the
grade point average for a pupil who has repeated a
course, the highest mark received from that course
shall be used in computing the grade-point average.
One grade point shall be added to each passing mark
received in Honors classes or in such other courses
as may be specifically designed to prepare pupils
for College Entrance Examination Board Advanced
Placement Examinations. (57:915.6)
These instructions then indicated that grade point
averages were computed using all marks with the exception
of Physical Education and ROTC. Four points were assigned
for an A, three points for a B, two points for a C, one
point for a D, and 0 points for a Fail mark. However,
69
Honors classes or Advanced Placement subject marks received
one additional point. The Honors marking system assigned
five points for an A, four points for a B, three points
for a C, two points for a D, and one point for a Fail mark.
An analysis of the cumulative records revealed the follow
ing:
1. Some schools used the 4-3-2-1-0 system and some
schools used the 5-4-3-2-1 system for computing
grade point averages for Honors subject
classes.
2. Some schools used the highest mark received for
courses which were repeated and some schools
used the average of the two marks.
To assure that all grade point averages included in
the study were computed in the same manner, the investiga
tor computed all grade point averages using the 4-3-2-1-0
and highest mark received systems.
Data Analyses
Factor analytic and discriminant analysis tech
niques were used to investigate the major hypothesis and to
identify common and unique characteristics of the two
groups. The BMD 03M (20:169) program which performs a
principal component solution and an orthogonal rotation of
the factor matrix was used for the factor analyses. Means
and standard deviations, correlation matrix, eigenvalues
70
including cumulative proportions of total variance, and the
factor matrix are included in the program output.
The BMD 07M (20:587) multiple discriminant analysis
program was used to consider the relationships and the
relative importance of each of the following variables in
discriminating between the two groups: (1) Henmon-Nelson
Intelligence Test scores; (2) Cooperative English Vocabulary
scores; (3) ITED Quantitative Thinking scores; (4) GPA; (5)
Other Offices; (6) Number of Clubs; and (7 to 13) the seven
separate measures of creativity. The program performs a
multiple discriminant analysis in a stepwise manner. At
each step one variable is entered into the set of discrim
inating variables. The variable entered is selected by the
first of the following equivalent criteria.
(1) The variable with the largest F value.
(2) The variable which when partialed on the previ
ously entered variables has the highest
multiple correlation with the groups.
(3) The variable which gives the greatest decrease
in the ratio of within to total generalized
variances.
The F value for inclusion was .01 and the F value for
deletion was .005.
The statistical procedures used in the study have
been concisely described by Cooley and Lohnes (14).
71
Chapter Summary
Chapter III reported the procedures used in con
ducting the study. Five major sections were devoted to a
description of (1) the Los Angeles Unified School District
in which the investigation was conducted, (2) the methods
used in identifying and involving the participating schools
and classes, (3) the tests and instruments administered,
(4) the nature of the data collected from the cumulative
records, and (5) the analyses of the data.
The study was limited to A-12 students enrolled in
twenty-seven of the thirty-seven Advanced Placement Classes
offered in twelve Los Angeles Senior High Schools. Data
collection was completed for 390 of 438 original partici
pants. A review of the characteristics of students not
included in the final sample did not suggest significant
patterns which would affect the research outcomes. There
were 227 students who met the State Gifted criteria as well
as the L.A. Gifted criteria and 163 students who met the
L.A. Gifted criteria but not the State Gifted criteria.
The selected Guilford Tests of Creativity and
student questionnaires were administered by credentialed
school psychologists and psychometrists to all students
enrolled in the twenty-seven Advanced Placement classes.
Cumulative records were analyzed to: (1) identify A-12
students who met the State Gifted criteria; (2) identify
A-12 students who met the L.A. Gifted criteria; and (3)
72
obtain data related to scholastic characteristics. Data
concerning affiliation-leadership and parent education were
obtained from the questionnaires.
Factor analytic and discriminant analysis techniques
were used to investigate the major hypothesis and to iden
tify common and unique characteristics of the two groups.
The BMD 03M program which performs a principal component
solution and an orthogonal rotation of the factor matrix was
used for the factor analyses. Means and standard devia
tions, correlation matrices, eigenvalues including cumula
tive proportions of total variance, and factor matrices
were obtained. ~
The BMD 07M multiple discriminant analysis program
was used for the discriminant analysis. A summary of the
analysis, F Values to Enter or Remove, coefficients for the
discriminant functions after the final step, and classifi
cation matrices were obtained.
CHAPTER IV
REPORT AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
This chapter presents a report and discussion of
the findings in the following four sections and a summary:
(1) Statement of Hypothesis; (2) Descriptive Statistics;
(3) Factor Analyses; and (4) Discriminant Analysis.
Statement of Hypothesis
The hypothesis of concern in the study was the
following:
HQ: The two groups, students who meet the Los
Angeles criteria for giftedness and students
who meet the State criteria for giftedness, do
not differ with respect to the following four
characteristics:
(1) Scholastic
(2) Creativity
(3) Affiliation-Leadership
(4) Parent Education.
When statistical tests of significance were
applied, the .01 confidence level was required to reject
73
the null hypothesis.
74
Descriptive Statistics
The Data
Table 2 presents means, standard deviations, and
F ratios for the State Gifted and L.A. Gifted groups. The
variates have been grouped in terms of the scholastic,
creativity, affiliation-leadership, and parent education
characteristics defined in the study. Descriptive statis
tics for each group by sex and by method of selection are
included in Appendices A and B.
Scholastic Characteristics
The means for the State Gifted exceeded the means
for the L.A. Gifted for all measured variables. Signifi
cant F ratios for differences between means were indicated
for these eight variables, in rank order from high to low:
(1) Henmon-Nelson Intelligence Test; (2) Cooperative
English Vocabulary Test; (3) Cooperative English— Speed of
Comprehension Test; (4) Iowa Tests of Educational Develop
ment— Quantitative Thinking Test; (5) Cooperative English-
English Expression Test; (6) Cooperative English--Level of
Comprehension Test; (7) Age; and (8) Grade Point Average.
No significant difference was observed for the proportion
of boys and girls in each group.
In both the L.A. and State Gifted groups mean
TABLE 2 75
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR STATE GIFTED
AND LOS ANGELES GIFTED GROUPS
Variable
State
N =
Mean
Gifted
227
S.D.
L. A.
N =
Mean
Gifted
163
S.D.
F-Value
df = 1,388
Scholastic
Henmon-Nelson 140.29 10.94 118.61 9.31 420.88*
Vocabulary 52.23 5.17 45.15 6.31 147.22*
Level of Comprehension 28.49 2.31 26.71 3.02 45.91*
Speed of Comprehension 53.17 5.00 46.11 6.78 128.46*
English Expression 69.40 7.34 62.70 7.28 69.58*
Quantitative Thinking 27.53 3.63 22.52 5.40 119.83*
G.P.A. 3.54 .31 3.39 .34 19.83*
Sex (Boys =1, Girls =0) .57 .50 .45 .50 2.67
Age 16.90 .42 17.10 .49 20.00*
Tests of Creativity
Making Objects 56.99 12.79 54.36 13.33 3.89
Utility Test (fluency) 29.02 8.05 27.77 8.70 2.15
Utility Test(flexibility) 19.95 7.14 16.80 7.05 17.15*
Figure Production 30.35 8.25 29.25 8.17 1.52
Seeing Problems 24.53 6.58 22.15 6.92 12.42*
Symbol Productions 33.75 11.81 29.59 11.47 11.75*
Object Synthesis 12.62 4.16 12.03 4.70 2.94
Creativity Total 178.15 33.76 163.50 32.80 19.28*
Affiliation-Leadership
Number of Student
Body Offices .10 .32 .16 .40 4.00
Number of Other Offices .68 .84 .57 .88 1.63
Number of Clubs 3.08 2.01 3.11 2.12 .02
Parent Education
Father Attended College .74 .44 .71 .45 .67
Father Graduated
College .57 .50 .53 .50 .89
Mother Attended College .65 .48 .61 .49 .89
Mother Graduated
College .40 .49 .31 .46 2.00
*p-C.01
76
scores for girls were equal to or greater than mean scores
for boys on all variates except quantitative thinking
(Appendix A) .
The use of the L.A. Gifted criteria in the assign
ment of A-12 students to Advanced Placement classes did
result in significant differences in the scholastic
characteristics of the two groups.
If the L.A. Gifted criteria were established for
the purpose of providing an opportunity for a greater
number of students to enroll in Advanced Placement classes,
then the purpose was achieved. If the criteria were
selected in an attempt to compensate for the restrictions
of the State Gifted criteria with the assumption that the
classes would be homogeneous with respect to scholastic
characteristics, the objective was not accomplished.
Creativity Characteristics
The mean scores for the State Gifted group were
higher than the mean scores for the L.A. Gifted group on
each measure of creativity. Significant mean differences
were identified for four of the eight sets of scores. The
means for the State Gifted group were significantly greater
for the Utility Test (flexibility), Seeing Problems Test,
Symbol Production Test, and the Creativity Total score.
There were no significant mean differences for the remain
ing creativity measures.
Descriptive statistics for State Gifted boys and
77
girls indicated that girls had higher mean scores in all
areas except Utility Test (fluency). Mean scores for L.A.
Gifted girls were greater than mean scores for L.A. Gifted
boys on all creativity measures, although the differences
generally were smaller for the L.A. Gifted than for the
State Gifted. Fewer marked differences were observed for
boys and girls in the L.A. Gifted group (Appendix A).
The Utility Test, when scored for flexibility, is a
measure of divergent production of semantic classes or
flexibility of thinking. It involves verbal thinking and
the ability to change set or shift without instruction.
The Seeing Problems Test involves the evaluation of
semantic implications. It involves making judgments con
cerning the appropriateness of information, reaching deci
sions, and extrapolating from verbal communications.
The Symbol Production Test is defined as original
ity or semantic adaptive flexibility. This test also
requires ability related to verbal thinking and verbal
communication.
No significant differences between the two groups
existed on measures which involved figural content.
Figural content is involved in the Making Objects Test and
the Figure Production Test.
The descriptive statistics suggested the State
Gifted group excelled in those measures of creativity which
involved flexibility in verbal thinking. The results also
78
suggested that superiority in one measure of creativity
does not insure superiority in other measures of creativity.
Affiliation-Leadership
No significant mean differences were reported for
the assessments related to affiliation-leadership. State
Gifted tended to hold more offices in clubs and organiza
tions and L.A. Gifted held more Student Body Offices.
Tables 8 and 9 in Appendix A suggest that girls
joined more clubs and held more offices in both groups.
Parent Education
Comparisons related to post high school education
of parents yielded no significant mean differences.
Approximately 70 per cent of the fathers in each group
graduated from college, and 60 per cent of the mothers in
each group attended college. The largest difference was in
the proportion of mothers who graduated from college where
the numbers were greater for the State Gifted. Comparisons
by sex showed that more girls1 parents than boys1 parents
in the L.A. Gifted group attended and graduated from col
lege, and that a larger proportion of the fathers of State
Gifted boys attended and graduated from college.
Interaction among the creativity measures and the
measures of scholastic, affiliation-leadership, and parent
education characteristics will be included in the discus
sion of the results of the factor analyses and the
79
discriminant analysis.
Factor Analyses
The Data
The rotated factor matrices for the State Gifted
and L.A. Gifted are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Each
analysis yielded seven factors which have been grouped
according to the characteristics of concern in the study.
Factor loadings of .30 or greater have been included.
Negative loadings were reflected within factors to facili
tate the interpretation. The correlation matrices and
complete tables of factor loadings are included in the
Appendix.
Scholastic Factors
The analyses yielded two scholastic factors for the
L.A. Gifted and three scholastic factors for the State
Gifted. State Gifted Factor II appears to parallel L.A.
Gifted Factor III. While each factor is clearly a verbal
factor with the five verbal variables each contributing
heavy loadings, L.A. Gifted Factor III includes an addi
tional modest loading on GPA and a negative loading on age.
State Gifted Factor V and L.A. Gifted Factor VI are
defined by the quantitative ITED achievement test and by
sex. The factor appears to reflect quantitative performance
but may also reflect more subtle personal characteristics
TABLE 3
FACTOR ANALYSIS--STATE GIFTED
Creativity
Affiliation-
Parent Education
Factor II V VI I VII IV
III
Speed 0.80 ITED - IV 0.76 Age 0.81 Elab. 0.67 Fluency -0.78
(Utility test)
Clubs 0.76 Father Grad.
College
0.86
Vocab. 0.74 Sex
(Boys)
0.71 Henmon-
Nelson
-0.41 Redef. 0.66 Flexib. -0.71 GFA 0.70 Father Att.
College
0.85
Henmon-
Nelson
0.70 Student
Body Off.
0.39 Student
Body Off
0.39 Orig. 0.65 Mother Att. -0.52
College
Other
Offices
0.68 Mother Grad.
College
0.64
English 0.65 ITED - IV -0.30 Fluency 0.65
(Making objects)
Mother Grad,-0.43
College
Student
Body Off.
0.36 Mother Att.
College
0.61
Comp. 0.60
Sensitiv.
Flexib.
0.56
0.47
Student -0.32
Body Off.
Sex
(Boys)
-0.36
Fluency 0.34
(Utility test)
Factor II V VI I VII IV III
Eigenvalues 2 60 1.40 1.21 3.49 1.07 1.73 2.52
Per cent of Variance 11.29 6.10
Before Rotation
Per cent of Variance 11.55 6.07
After Rotation
60.95 Per cent total variation extracted
5.25
5.99
15.17
11.04
4.64
7.70
7.53
8.44
10.98
10.16
00
o
TABLE 4
FACTOR ANALYSIS— LOS ANGELES GIFTED
Scholastic Creativity Affiliation-Leadership______ Parent Education
III VI I V IV VII II
Vocab. 0.80 ITED IV 0.82 Fluency 0.74
(Making objects)
Sensitiv. 0.77 Other
Offices
0.84 Student
Body Off.
0.77 Father Att.
College
0.80
Speed 0.73 Sex
(Boys)
0.65 Elab. 0.73 Redef, 0.66 Clubs 0.66 Clubs 0.43 Mother Att.
College
0.76
English 0.66 Hemnon-
Nelson
0.41 Fluency 0.62
(Utility test)
Flexib. 0.56 GPA 0.30 Sex
(Boys)
-0.34 Father Grad.
College
0.73
Henmon-
Nelson
0.59 Orig. 0.59 Fluency 0.46
(Utility test)
Mother Grad.
College
0.71
Comp. 0.57 Flexib. 0.48
GPA 0.34 Age -0.36
Age -0.32
III VI I V IV VII II
Eigenvalues 2.19 1.27 3.71 1.33 1.60
Per cent of Variance 9.51 5.52 16.15 5.79 6.93
Before flotation
Per cent of Variance 11.60 6.36 10.06 8.33 6.58
After Rotation
60.04 Per cent total variation extracted
oo
82
associated with sex roles.
State Gifted Factor VI is defined largely by chrono
logical age. A comparable factor did not appear in the L.A.
Gifted analysis. In the L.A. Gifted analysis, age has a
communality of only .39 as opposed to a communality of .69
in the State Gifted analysis. The discrepancy in the
magnitude of the communality of age from one analysis to
another may be a by-product of the fact that chronological
age is a consistent aspect of the intelligence quotient.
On the other hand the lower age of the State Gifted group
suggests a higher acceleration rate for this group which
could conceivably have a differential effect on the factor
structure.
Creativity Factors
While each analysis yielded two factors defined
largely by creativity variables, the factor patterns are
not directly parallel. State Gifted Factor I appeared to
be a general creativity factor to which each of the crea
tivity variables contributes. The factor cuts across
divergent and convergent production and evaluation opera
tions although it is dominated by divergent production. It
also includes a balance of both figural and semantic
content. It emphasizes implication and transformation
products but also includes systems, class, and units.
L.A. Gifted Factor I also is defined by creativity
83
variables, and is a purer representation of divergent
production with figural content predominating over semantic
content and cutting across five product forms. Chronolog
ical age contributes a minor negative loading.
State Gifted Factor VII also appears to be a diver
gent production of semantic content factor. The loadings
on mothers' education may be suggestive of the maternal
influence on the development of verbal skills.
L.A. Gifted Factor V is defined by its semantic
content. The evaluation operation predominates but both
convergent and divergent production are represented as are
the four product forms.
The sum of the variance accounted for by the two
creativity factors in each analysis is closely comparable.
The distinctions in the factor patterns appear consistent
but are difficult to relate to identifiable distinctions
in the two groups.
Affiliation-Leadership Factors
A single factor appears in the State Gifted analy
sis . It is defined largely by the social variables, but
GPA also contributes its largest proportion of common
variance to this factor, suggesting that the "joiner" is
also a good scholar.
In the L.A. Gifted analysis, Student Body Offices
and Other Offices define independent factors with clubs
contributing approximately equal variance to each factor.
84
GPA contributes a modest loading to the Other Offices
factor and sex a modest loading to the Student Body Office
factor.
The identical five variables are involved on the
two L.A. Gifted factors as on the single State Gifted
factor, suggesting that the difference in the factor pat
terns may not be highly reliable.
Parent Education Factors
In each analysis the four parent education variables
contributed to the formation of a single homogeneous factor.
Discussion of Factor Analytic Results
Each analysis yielded a readily interpretable
factor pattern. The similarity of the factor patterns
indicate that the differences between the two groups noted
at the descriptive statistics level are not sustained at
the underlying factor level. Although minor variations in
the relative loadings of a few variables do appear, the
general pattern from one analysis to another is highly
consistent.
The independence of the creativity and cognitive
variables is of interest. The creativity measures appear
to be relatively independent of intelligence. The correla
tions between the Henmon-Nelson score and the separate
measures of creativity ranged from -.10 to .13 in the State
Gifted analysis and from .02 to .15 in the L.A. Gifted
85
analysis.
Discriminant Analysis
Discriminant analysis was used to examine differ
ences between the two groups on the basis of the following
variables: (1) Henmon-Nelson Intelligence Test scores;
(2) Cooperative English Vocabulary scores; (3) ITED Quanti
tative Thinking scores; (4) GPA; (5) Other Offices; (6)
Number of Clubs; and (7 to 13) the seven separate measures
of creativity.
The purpose was to consider the relationships among
the variables and to assess the relative importance of each
variable in discriminating between the two groups.
Table 5 presents a summary of the analysis. The
variables are listed in rank order of contribution to the
discrimination of the two groups. The column of F values
to Enter or Remove indicates the relative significance of
each variable to the discrimination.
Table 6 reports the coefficients for the discrimi
nant functions after the final step in the analysis.
Table 7 reports the classification matrices showing
the effect of each variable.
Inspection of the tables indicates that the follow
ing three variables contributed significantly to the
discrimination: (1) Henmon-Nelson Intelligence scores,
(2) ITED Quantitative Thinking scores, and (3) Cooperative
86
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
Step
Number
Variable
Entered
F Value
to Enter
or Remove
Number of
Variables
Included
1 Heranon-NeIson 420.8857* 1
2 ITED - 4 13.9545* 2
3 Cooperative - Vocab. 10.5735* 3
4 Other Offices 5.3574 4
5 Number of Clubs 2.2553 5
6 Object Synthesis 2.8020 6
7 Utility Test (flexibility)i 1.0463 7
8 Utility Test (fluency) 1.7577 8
9 GPA 1.2508 9
10 Figure Production Test 0.2063 10
11 Symbol Production Test 0.2205 11
12 Making Objects 0.1260 12
*p< .01
87
TABLE 6
COEFFICIENTS OF DISCRIMINANT FUNCTIONS
Variable*
Function
State Gifted
Function
L. A. Gifted
GPA 0". 25238 0.25834
Making Objects 0.10004 0.09481
Utility Test (fluency) 0.31654 0.35073
Utility Test (flexibility) -0.33968 -0.39197
Figure Production Test 0.11506 0.12942
Symbol Production Test 0.05247 0.04682
Object Synthesis 0.52703 0.47389
Other Offices 1.69380 1.11224
Henmon-Nelson 1.01137 0.83764
Cooperative - Vocabulary 0.54296 0.45184
ITED - 4 0.39892 0.24356
Number of Clubs -1.34984 -1.23154
Constant -143.77226 -114.33900
*The F value to Enter or Remove for the Seeing Problems
Test was below the criterion of .01 for inclusion.
TABLE 7
DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS CLASSIFICATION MATRICES
Henmon-Nelson
SG L.A.
State Gifted 197 30
L.A. Gifted 19 144
Henmon-Nelson. ITED - 4
SG L.A.
State Gifted 202 25
L.A. Gifted 20 143
Henmon-Nelson. ITED - 4. Cooperative Vocabulary
SG L.A.
State Gifted 203 24
L.A. Gifted 17 146
Henmon-Nelson. ITED - 4.
CooperatTve - Vocabulary, Other Offices
SG L.A.
State Gifted 202 25
L.A. Gifted 19 144
TABLE 7 (continued)
DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS CLASSIFICATION MATRICES
Henmon-Nelson, ITED - 4, Cooperative - Vocabulary,
--------Otlier OfficesT ftumber o’ f Club's----------
SG L.A.
State Gifted 202 25
L.A. Gifted 19 144
Henmon-Nelson, ITED - 4, Cooperative - Vocabulary,
Other Offices, Number of Clubs, Object Synthesis
SG L.A.
State Gifted 202 25
L.A. Gifted 18 145
Henmon-Nelson. ITED - 4. Cooperative - Vocabulary.
Other Offices, Number of clubs. Obiect Synthesis,
-----------'OtlHtv Test - FlexibfTrEv
SG L.A.
State Gifted 201 26
L.A. Gifted 17 146
Henmon-Nelson, ITED - 4, Cooperative - Vocabulary,
Other Offices, dumber of Clubs. Obiect Synthesis,
Utility Test - Flexibility, Utility Test - Fluency
SG L.A.
State Gifted 203 24
L.A. Gifted 16 147
TABLE 7 (continued) 90
DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS CLASSIFICATION MATRICES
Henmon-Nelson. ITED - 4, Cooperative - Vocabulary,
bther Offices, Number oi Clubs, object Synthesis,
Utility Test - Flexibility, Utility Test - Fluency, GPA
SG L.A.
State Gifted 203 24
L.A. Gifted 15 148
Henmon-Nelson. ITED - 4, Cooperative - Vocabulary.
■ Other Offices. Number if CiGbs. Obiect Synthesis.
Utility Test - Flexibility. Utility Test - fluency.
GPA. Figure Procluctlon Test-----------
SG L.A.
State Gifted 202 25
L.A. Gifted 16 147
Henmon-Nelson, ITED - 4, Cooperative - Vocabulary.
Other Offices, Number of Clubs. Obiect Synthesis,
tftlTXty Teat Flexibility.' 'TTtilltTTest -"Fluency. Utility Test - Flexibility. Utility Test - Fluency.
GPA, Figure Production Test, Symbol Production Test
SG L.A.
State Gifted 202 25
L.A. Gifted 16 147
Henmon-Nelson, ITED - 4. Cooperative - Vocabulary, Other
Offices, Number o£ Clubs, Obiect Synthesis, Utility
Test '-'"flexibility. Utility T^st - fluency. CEA, figure
Production Test. Symbol Production Test, Making Objects
SG L.A.
State Gifted 202 25
________________L.A. Gifted 16 147_______________
91
English Vocabulary scores.
Table 6 shows two additional students would be
appropriately classified as gifted in terms of the predomi
nant characteristics of the two groups by adding Other
Offices, Number of Clubs, Object Synthesis, Utility Test
(flexibility), Utility Test (fluency), and Grade Point
Averages.
The results reject the hypothesis that the two
groups are similar. Of the four characteristics investi
gated, the scholastic measures were the significant
discriminators.
The results of the discriminant analysis, consist
ent with the results of the factor analyses, suggested that
the efforts to broaden the definition of giftedness had not
succeeded. The definition was not broadened; it was
stretched along a continuum of scholastic measures and
resulted in the creation of two distinct groups on a single
dimension.
Chapter Summary
In Chapter IV the findings of the study were
reported. Implications of the descriptive statistics,
factor analyses, and discriminant analysis treatments of
the data were noted. Significant outcomes were discussed
in terms of the scholastic, creativity, affiliation-
leadership, and parent education characteristics defined in
92
the study.
The mean measures of scholastic characteristics for
the State Gifted were significantly greater than the mean
measures for the L.A. Gifted on all measured variables.
The mean scores for the State Gifted group were also higher
than the mean scores for the L.A. Gifted group on each
measure of creativity and were significantly greater for
measures of divergent production of semantic classes,
evaluation of semantic implications, divergent production
of semantic transformations, and total creativity score.
No significant differences were reported for the
assessments related to affiliation-leadership or parent
education.
The factor analysis for each group yielded seven
readily interpretable factor patterns. The similarity of
the factor patterns indicated that the differences between
the two groups noted at the descriptive statistics level
were not sustained at the underlying factor level.
Although the minor variations in the relative loadings of
a few variables did appear, the general pattern from one
analysis to another was highly consistent.
The analyses yielded two scholastic factors for the
L.A. Gifted and three scholastic factors for the State
Gifted. The two L.A. Gifted factors were similar to two of
the State Gifted factors. The third State Gifted factor
was defined largely by chronological age.
93
While each analysis yielded two factors defined
largely by creativity variables for each group, the factor
patterns were not directly parallel. The distinctions
appeared consistent but were difficult to relate to identi
fiable distinctions in the two groups.
A single affiliation-leadership factor appeared in
the State Gifted analysis defined largely by the social
variables. In the L.A. Gifted analysis, Student Body
Offices and Other Offices defined independent factors with
clubs contributing approximately equal variance to each
factor. The identical five variables were involved on the
two L.A. Gifted factors as on the single State Gifted
factor, suggesting the difference in factor patterns may
not be highly reliable.
Each analysis of the four parent education varia
bles contributed to the formation of a single homogeneous
factor.
The Henmon-Nelson Intelligence scores, the ITED
Quantitative Thinking scores, and the Cooperative English
Vocabulary scores were the variables which contributed
significantly to the discriminant analysis. The results
indicated that the two groups were different. Of the four
characteristics investigated, the scholastic measures were
the significant discriminators.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a review of the study. The
summary section of the chapter relates the background for
the study, the hypothesis of concern, and the procedure.
The second section of the chapter reports the findings, and
the final section presents the conclusions and recommenda
tions for further research.
Summary
Background for the Study
One of the most formidable educational problems of
national consequence is the differential assessment and
evaluation of students identified for special programs for
the gifted. In 1961, a special education program for
mentally gifted minors was added to the California Educa
tion Code. The intention of the legislature was to provide
additional learning advantages to children who have the
intellectual potential to make significant scientific and
cultural contributions. Section 199.11 of Article 23,
Subchapter 1 of Title V of the California Administrative
94
95
Code, established the following minimum standards for pro
grams for mentally gifted minors for whom excess reimburse
ment may be claimed:
(1) A score on an individual intelligence test,
such as the Revised Stanford-Binet Scale, Form L-M,
representing an intelligence quotient of 130 or
above, administered by a person credentialed for
this purpose by the State Board of Education.
[or]
(2) A score at or above the 98th percentile on
a group test of mental ability and a score at or
above the 98th percentile on a standardized test of
reading achievement or arithmetic achievement, each
test having been administered within a period of no
more than 36 months of the date of identification.
Beginning July 1, 1963, the tests used for this
purpose must be chosen from a list of tests approved
by the State Board of Education under the provisions
of Education Code, Section 12821.
[or]
(3) The judgments of teachers, psychologists,
and school administrators and supervisors who are
familiar with the demonstrated ability of the
minors provided that not more than three (3) per
cent of the pupils for whom an excess cost reim
bursement is claimed shall be identified on such
judgments alone. (84)
Prior to the advent of the California legislation,
the Los Angeles City Unified School District had estab
lished the following local criteria for the identification
and placement of students in Honors classes for the gifted:
1. Recommendations of principals, counselors, and
teachers.
and
2. Demonstrated high competence and potential in
the subject field background necessary for
participation in the Honors classes.
3. Either of the following qualifications:
a. Consistent measured academic achievement at
least two years above grade placement as
measured by standardized test or measured
academic achievement at the 95th percentile
or higher on a test which is interpreted in
percentiles.
b. An intelligence quotient of approximately
130 or higher as determined by a group mental
test, or from a psychological study, or an
intelligence quotient at least two standard
deviations above the mean for the test used.
(60:2)
Because of the restrictive nature of the State cri
teria, the District continued to use the L.A. criteria in
identifying pupils for Advanced Placement and other Honors
classes. The L.A. Gifted criteria were used for placement
in special classes and only those students who met the
State criteria for selection were reported to the State.
The following questions related to the use of the
two sets of criteria were raised by the Los Angeles City
Committee on Education of Intellectually Gifted Pupils:
1. Do the students who meet the Los Angeles
criteria have many characteristics in common
with the students who meet the State criteria?
2. Does either set of criteria favor boys or
girls ?
3. What characteristics would the two groups have
in common if tests of creativity were incor
porated in the selection criteria?
97
The Hypothesis of Concern
The hypothesis of concern in the study was the
following:
Hq: The two groups, students who meet the Los
Angeles criteria and students who meet the
State criteria, do not differ with respect
to the following four characteristics:
A. Scholastic
B. Creativity
C. Affiliation-Leadership
D. Parent Education.
The following variables were used to assess the
four characteristics:
A. Scholastic.
1. Henmon-Nelson Intelligence Test scores.
2. Cooperative English Test scores.
a. Vocabulary.
b. Level of Comprehension.
c. Speed of Comprehension.
d. English Expression.
3. Iowa Tests of Educational Development:
Test 4— Ability to Do Quantitative Thinking
scores.
4. Grade Point Averages.
5. Age.
6. Sex.
98
B. Creativity--the following Guilford Tests of
Creativity:
1. Making Objects Test scores— divergent
production of figural systems.
2. Utility Test scores (fluency)--divergent
production of semantic units.
3. Utility Test scores (flexibility)--diver
gent production of semantic classes.
4. Figure Production Test scores--divergent
production of figural implications.
5. Seeing Problems Test scores— evaluation of
semantic implications.*
6. Symbol Production Test scores--divergent
production of semantic transformations.
7. Object Synthesis Test scores--convergent
production of semantic transformations.*
C. Affiliation-Leadership.
1. Number of school and/or non-school club
memberships and offices.
2. Number of student body offices.
D. Parent Education.
Yes or No responses to the questions:
1. Did your father attend college?
*Although not defined by Guilford as divergent
factors, these are considered by Guilford, Merrifield, and
Cox (42:5) to be important contributors to creative
thinking.
99
2. Did your father graduate from college?
3. Did your mother attend college?
4. Did your mother graduate from college?
Procedure
The study was conducted in the twelve Los Angeles
Senior High Schools which offered Advanced Placement
classes during the Spring Semester, 1965, and was limited
to A-12 students. Data were collected for 438 of the 678
students enrolled in twenty-seven of the thirty-seven
classes offered. Data collection was completed for 390
students in the original sample. A review of the charac
teristics of the students not included in the final sample
because of incomplete cumulative record data, attendance,
or preference not to participate did not suggest signifi
cant patterns which would affect the research outcomes.
There were 227 students who met the State Gifted criteria
as well as the L.A. Gifted criteria and 163 students who
met the L.A. criteria but not the State criteria in the
final sample.
The selected Guilford Tests of Creativity and
student questionnaires were administered by credentialed
school psychologists and psychometrists to all students
enrolled in the twenty-seven Advanced Placement classes.
Cumulative records were analyzed to: (1) identify A-12
students who met the State Gifted criteria; (2) identify
A-12 students who met the L.A. Gifted criteria; and (3)
100
obtain data related to scholastic characteristics. Data
concerning affiliation-leadership and parent education were
obtained from the questionnaires.
Factor analytic and discriminant analysis techniques
were used to investigate the major hypothesis and to iden
tify common and unique characteristics of the two groups.
The BMD 03M program which performs a principal component
solution and an orthogonal rotation of the factor matrix
was used for the factor analyses. Means and standard devia
tions, correlation matrices, eigenvalues including cumula- .
tive proportions of total variance, and factor matrices
were obtained.
The BMD 07M multiple discriminant analysis program
was used to consider the relationships and the relative
importance of each of the following variables in discrimi
nating between the two groups: (1) Henmon-Nelson Intelli
gence Test scores; (2) Cooperative English Vocabulary
scores; (3) ITED Quantitative Thinking scores; (4) GPA; (5)
Other Offices; (6) Number of Clubs; and (7 to 13) the seven
separate measures of creativity.
A summary of the analysis, F values to Enter or
Remove, coefficients for the discriminant functions after
the final step, and classification matrices were obtained.
101
Findings
The findings are reported in the following order:
(1) Statistically significant differences between means for
the two groups on isolated measures related to the scholas
tic, creativity, affiliation-leadership, and parent educa
tion characteristics; (2) the results of the factor analy
ses; and (3) the discriminant analysis outcomes. When
statistical tests of significance were applied, the .01
confidence level was required to reject the null hypothesis.
Descriptive Statistics
Scholastic characteristics. The mean measures for
the State Gifted were significantly greater than the mean
measures for the L.A. Gifted for all measured variables.
There was no significant difference in the number of boys
or girls in each group.
The scholastic characteristics of students who met
the State Gifted criteria were consistently superior to the
scholastic characteristics of students who met the L.A.
Gifted criteria.
Creativity characteristics. The mean scores for
the State Gifted group were higher than the mean scores for
the L.A. Gifted group on each measure of creativity and
were significantly greater for measures of divergent
production of semantic classes, evaluation of semantic
102
implications, divergent production of semantic transforma
tions, and total creativity score. No significant differ
ences existed on measures which involved figural content.
The creativity characteristics of State Gifted
students were superior or equal to the creativity charac
teristics of the L.A. Gifted students.
Affiliation-leadership. No significant differences
were reported for the assessment related to affiliation-
leadership. State Gifted tended to hold more offices in
clubs and organizations and L.A. Gifted to hold more
Student Body Offices.
Parent education. Comparisons related to post high
school education of parents yielded no significant mean
differences. The report that approximately 70 per cent of
the fathers in each group graduated from college and
approximately 60 per cent of the mothers in each group
attended college was of interest.
Factor Analyses
The analysis for each group yielded seven readily
interpretable factor patterns. The similarity of the
factor patterns indicated that the differences between the
two groups noted at the descriptive statistics level were
not sustained at the underlying factor level. Although
minor variations in the relative loadings of a few
103
variables did appear, the general pattern from one analysis
to another was highly consistent. The findings related to
the four characteristics defined in the investigation were
as follows:
Scholastic factors. The analysis yielded two scho
lastic factors for the L.A. Gifted and three scholastic
factors for the State Gifted. The two L.A. Gifted factors
were similar to two of the State Gifted factors. The third
State Gifted factor was defined largely by chronological
age.
Creativity factors. While each analysis yielded
two factors defined largely by creativity variables, the
factor patterns were not directly parallel. The sum of the
variance accounted for by the two creativity factors in
each analysis was closely comparable. The distinctions in
the factor patterns appeared consistent but were difficult
to relate to identifiable distinctions in the two groups.
Independent creativity factors and cognitive
factors were included for each group. The creativity
measures appeared to be relatively independent of intelli
gence. The correlations between the Henmon-Nelson score
and the separate measures of creativity ranged from -.10 to
.13 in the State Gifted analysis and from .02 to .15 in the
L.A. Gifted analysis.
104
Affiliation-leadership. A single factor appeared in
the State Gifted analysis. It was defined largely by the
social variables, but Grade Point Average also contributed
its largest proportion of common variance to this factor.
In the L.A. Gifted analysis, Student Body Offices and Other
Offices defined independent factors with clubs contributing
approximately equal variance to each factor. Grade Point
Average contributed a modest loading to the Other Offices
factor and Sex a modest loading to the Student Body Office
factor.
The identical five variables were involved on the
two L.A. Gifted factors as on the single State Gifted
factor, suggesting the difference in factor patterns may not
be highly reliable.
Parent education factors. In each analysis the
four parent education variables contributed to the forma
tion of a single homogeneous factor.
Discriminant Analysis
The Henmon-Nelson Intelligence scores, the ITED
Quantitative Thinking scores, and the Cooperative English
Vocabulary scores were the variables which contributed
significantly to the discrimination. Two additional
students would be appropriately classified in terms of the
predominant characteristics of the two groups by adding the
following variables: (1) Other Offices; (2) Number of
105
Clubs; (3) Object Synthesis; (4) Utility Test (flexibility);
(5) Utility Test (fluency); and (6) Grade Point Average.
The results of the discriminant analysis indicated
that the two groups were different. Although the creativity
and cognitive measures had independent factorial functions,
only the cognitive measures contributed significantly to the
discrimination between the two groups. Of the four charac
teristics investigated, the scholastic measures were the
significant discriminators.
Conclusions and Recommendations
for Further Research
I
The results of the study clarified the characteris
tics of the two groups and indicated that the efforts of
the District to broaden the definition of giftedness did
not succeed. The definition was not broadened; it was
stretched along a continuum of scholastic measures and
resulted in the creation of two distinct groups on a single
dimension.
If the L.A. Gifted criteria were established for
the purpose of providing an opportunity for a greater number
of students to enroll in Advanced Placement classes, the
purpose was achieved. If the L.A. Gifted criteria were
selected in an attempt to compensate for the restrictions
of the State criteria and to include students who were more
creative, the objective was not accomplished.
106
The expansion of the concept of giftedness requires
more than lowering standards. Curriculum content, methods
of instruction, and methods of evaluating student products
should be considered simultaneously with criteria for
selection.
The variance within each group in terms of the
creativity measures suggests a currently unrealized poten
tial. Further research needs to be performed to isolate
specific instructional procedures for converting this
potential into identifiable achievement. What would happen
if a class of students were to be formed based on the crea
tivity measures rather than the intelligence scores and if
the instruction were to be tailored to the behaviors
measured by the tests of creativity?
The results of the factor analyses yielded marker
variables which may be used as a basis for further factor
analytic explorations.
Additional research is needed in the area of cri
teria for success in special classes for gifted students.
Should the criteria for success in Advanced Placement
classes be scores on Advanced Placement examinations? Or
should the criteria for success be subject marks? It may
well be that the full contribution of creativity to an
expanded concept of giftedness will await an expansion of
the criteria for educational achievement.
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
107
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Harold K. "Creativity and Education."
Distributed by the Los Angeles County Superintend
ent of Schools, Los Angeles, California, 1961.
Barbe, Walter B., and Dorothy Norris. "Special
Classes for Gifted Children in Cleveland,"
Exceptional Children. 21:55-57, 1954.
Bevans, L. "Education of Children with Special Abili
ties." California Journal of Elementary Education,
22:140-T57, "W 5T.-------- --------- ---------
Blosser, G. H. "Group Intelligence Tests as Screening
Devices in Locating Gifted and Superior Students
in the Ninth Grade," Exceptional Children, 29:282-
286, 1963.
Buros, Oscar K. (ed.) . The Fifth Mental Measurements
Yearbook, Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon Press,
1959.
California Elementary School Administrators' Associa-
tion. The Gifted Child: Another Look. Monograph
No. 10. Palo Alto: National Press, 1958.
Carroll, H. A. Genius in the Making. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1940.
Chauncey, Henry. "How Tests Help Us Identify the
Academically Talented," National Education Associ-
tion Journal, 47:230-231, 195&.
. "Measurement and Prediction: Tests of
Academic Ability," The Identification and Educa
tion of the Academically Talented Student in the
American Secondary School. Ed. James B. Conant.
Washington, £>.(!.: National Education Association,
1958.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
109
Cicirelli, V. G. "Form of the Relationship Between
Creativity, IQ, and Academic Achievement,” Journal
of Educational Psychology, 56:303-308, 1963.
Cline, V. G., J. M. Richards, and W. E. Needham.
"Creativity Tests and Achievements in High School
Science," Journal of Applied Psychology. 47:184-
189, 1963.
Conant, James B. "The Academically Talented Pupil,"
National Education Association Journal, 47:218-219,
t s s z:---------------------------------------------
_______. The American High School Today. 1st ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959.
Cooley, William W., and Paul R. Lohnes. Multivariate
Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences"! New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.
Cosgrove, Clark J. "The Identification of Scientific
Talent." Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1962.
Cowan, J. C. "The Underachieving Gifted Child:
A Problem for Everyone," Exceptional Children,
21:247-249, 1955.
Cropley, A. J. "The Relatedness of Divergent and
Convergent Thinking," Psychology of Education.
Ed. Donald H. Clark. New York: The fc'ree tress,
1967.
DeHaan, Robert F. "Identifying Gifted Children,"
School Review, 65:41-48, 1957.
DeHaan, Robert F., and Robert J. Havighurst. Educat
ing Gifted Children. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1961.
Dixon, W. J. Biomedical Computer Programs.
Los Angeles : University of California, 1965.
Duncan, D. K. "Programs for Mentally Gifted Minors
and Other Gifted Students in the Unified School
Districts of California." Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California,
1964.
Educational Policies Commission. Education of the
Gifted. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, 1950.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
110
Educational Policies Commission. Education of the
Gifted. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, 1955.
. "Identification of the Gifted," Test Service
Notebook No. 7. Issued by the Test Department.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., n.d.
Educational Testing Service. Cooperative English
Tests: Manual for InterpretingScores.
Princeton, to.J.: Cooperative Test Division, 1960.
Edwards, M. P., and Leona E. Tyler. "Intelligence,
Creativity, and Achievement in a Nonselective
Public Junior High School," Journal of Educational
Psychology. 56:96-99, 1965.
Eisner, Elliot W. "Research in Creativity: Some
Findings and Conceptions," Childhood Education.
8:371-375, 1963. ' *
English, Horace B., and Ava C. English. A Comprehen
sive Dictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalyt
ical Terms. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.,
1933:-------
Flescher, I. "Anxiety and Achievement of Intellectu
ally Gifted and Creatively Gifted Children,"
Journal of Psychology, 56:251-268, 1963.
Freehill, Maurice F. Gifted Children. New York:
The Macmillan Co., 1961.
Gallagher, James J. Analysis of Research on the Edu
cation of the Gifted Child. Springfield: {State
o£ Illinois Office o£ the Superintendent of Public
Instruction, 1960.
Galton, F. Hereditary Genius. London: The Macmillan
Co., 1914":
Garlock, Jerry C. "A Multiple Criterion for Including
Pupils in a Gifted Program Based on Trivariate
Distribution," 1967. (Mimeographed.)
Gershon, A., J. P. Guilford, and P. R. Merrifield.
"Figural and Symbolic Divergent-Production Abili
ties in Adolescent and Adult Populations," Reports
from the Psychological Laboratory. No. 29.
Los Angeles: University o£ Southern California,
1963.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Ill
Getzels, J. W., and P. W. Jackson. "The Meaning of
'Giftedness.1 An Examination of an Expanding
Concept," Phi Delta Kappan, 30:75, November 1958.
_. Creativity and Intelligence. New York:
JoKn Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962 .
Gowan, John Curtis, and George D. Demos. The Educa-
tion and Guidance of the Ablest. Springfield,
111.: Charles C. Thomas, i9b4.
Guilford, J. P. "The Structure of Intellect,"
Psychological Bulletin, 53:267-293, 1956.
_. "Three Faces of Intellect," American
Psychologist, 14:469-479, 1959.
. "Creativity in the Secondary School," The
High School Journal, 48:451-458, 1965.
Guilford, J. P., and R. Hoepfner. "Current Summary of
Structure-of-Intellect Factors and Suggested
Tests," Reports from the Psychological Laboratory.
No. 30. Los Angeles: University o£ Southern
California, 1963.
Guilford, J. P., P. R. Merrifield, and Anna B. Cox.
"Creative Thinking of Children at the Junior High
School Levels," Cooperative Research Project No.
737. Reports from the Psychological Laboratory,
26:1-35. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California, 1961.
Guilford, J. P., R, C. Wilson, P. R. Christenson, and
J, D. Lewis. "A Factor Analytic Study of Creative
Thinking: I. Hypothesis and Description of
Tests," Reports from the Psychological Laboratory,
4:2-27. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California, 1951.
. "A Factor Analytic Study of Creative Think-
Trig: II. Administration of Tests and Analysis of
Results," Reports from the Psychological Labora
tory. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California, 1952.
Havighurst, Robert J. "The Importance of Education
for the Gifted," Fifty-Seventh Yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education:
Education for tne Gifted. Part II. Ed. Nelson B.
Henry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
112
Herr. Edwin L., Gilbert D. More, and James C. Hansen.
’ ’Creativity, Intelligence, and Values: A Study of
Relationships," Exceptional Children, October
1965, pp. 114-1 ITT;
Hildreth, Gertrude H. Introduction to the Gifted.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1966.
Holland, J. L. "Some Limitations of Teacher Ratings
as Predictors of Creativity," Journal of Educa
tional Psychology, 50:219-223, 1959.
Holzinger, K. J., and H. H. Harman. Factor Analysis:
A Synthesis of Factorial Methods. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1951.
Kelley, T. L. Crossroads in the Mind of Man.
Stanford, Calif. : Stanford University l?ress, 1928.
_______. Essential Traits of Mental Life. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1935.
Kincaid, Donald. "Some Critical Issues in the Educa
tion of Gifted Pupils." A Talk given to the
Council of Administrators of Special Education,
38th Annual Conference, Council of Exceptional
Children, April 10, 1960, Los Angeles.
Kneller, George F. The Art and Science of Creativity.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966.
Laycock, Samuel. Gifted Children. Toronto, Canada:
Copp Clark Publishing Co., Ltd., 1957.
Leese, Joseph, and Louis A. Fliegler. Curriculum
Planning for the Gifted. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. :
Prentice-Ha11, Inc., 1^61.
Levinson, B. "Rethinking of the Selection of Intellec
tually Gifted Children," Psychological Reports,
2:127-130, 1956.
Los Angeles City Schools. Evaluation and Research
Section. "Counselors Handbook," Report No. 232,
1962. (Mimeographed.)
. "Education of Intellectually Gifted Pupils
in Los Angeles." Rev. ed., 1962. (Mimeographed.)
"Report to Secondary School Committee on
1962-63 Study of Program for Intellectually
Gifted," 1963. (Mimeographed.)
113
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
Los Angeles City Schools. ’’Specifications of Advanced
Placement Programs.” Division of Secondary Educa
tion, 1964. (Mimeographed.)
’’ General Information on the Los Angeles City
Schools," 1965. (Mimeographed.)
_______ . ’’ Highlights of the Work of the Committee on
Education of Intellectually Gifted Pupils," 1956-
1965. (Mimeographed.)
Merrifield, P. R., S. F. Gardner, and Anna B. Cox.
"Aptitudes and Personality Measures Related to
Creativity in Seventh Grade Children," Reports from
the Psychological Laboratory. No. 28.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California,
1964.
Metfessel, Newton S. "Interpretive Guide for the
Tests of Creativity.” A report prepared by
Project Potential. Los Angeles: University of
Southern California, 1964. (Mimeographed.)
Metfessel, Newton S., H. Handler, and J. W. Hall.
"A Comparative Investigation into Creative Abili
ties of Subjects from Two Domains of Eminent
Intellect." Paper read at the State Convention,
California Association of School Psychologists,
Los Angeles, California, March 16, 1962.
Nolan, E. G. "The Gifted Student: His Problem and
Ours." California Journal of Secondary Education,
22:180-183, 1947.--------- ----------
Norton, Monte S. "What Are Some of the Important
Factors to Consider in a Program of Identifying
the Gifted Pupils in Mathematics and Science?"
School Science and Mathematics, 57:103-108,
T9371---------------------
Passow, A. Harry, and Miriam L. Goldberg. "The
Talented Youth Project: A Progress Report, 1962,"
Exceptional Children, 28:223-231, 1962.
Pegnato, C. C., and J. W. Birch. "Locating Gifted
Children in Junior High School,” Exceptional
Children, 25:300-304, 1959.
Price, Marian B. "The Relationship of Age, Mental
Age, IQ and Sex to Divergent Thinking Tests."
114
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont
Graduate School, 1962.
71. Risser, John Joseph. "An Individual Testing Approach
to Assess Creative Abilities." Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1966.
72. Robinson, F. W., Jr. "The Administration of Special
Academic Classes for the Gifted in High School."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1958.
73. Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. "The Pursuit of
Excellence, Education, and the Future of America."
Panel Report of the Social Studies Project.
Garden City, N.Y. : The Fund, 1958.
74. Rothrock, Phyllis L. "A Study of the Creative^Abili
ties of the Gifted Student at the Junior High
School Level." Unpublished Master's project,
University of Southern California, 1966.
75. Scheifele, Marian. The Gifted Child in the Regular
Classroom. New York: Bureau of Publications,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1953.
76. Schmadel, Eleanora, Philip R. Merrifield, and Marcella
R. Bonsall. "A Comparison of Performances of
Gifted and Non-Gifted Children on Selected Meas
ures of Creativity," California Journal of
Educational Research, 16:123-127, 1965.
77. Science Research Associates. Iowa Tests of Educa-
tional Development: How to Use the Test Results.
Chicago, T9337
78. Severson, J. "Selecting Students for an Honors
Program," National Association of Secondary School
Principals Bulletin" 41:134-159, 1957.
79. Shertzer, Bruce. "Identifying Superior and Talented
Students," Working with Superior Students. Ed.
Bruce Shertzer. Chicago: Science Research
Associates, 1960.
80. Smaltz, Janet M., and James D. Mathisen. "Who Are the
Gifted Children," Educating the Academically Able.
Ed. Lester D. Crow and Alice Crow. New York:
David McKay Co., Inc., 1963.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
115
Southern Regional Education Board. The Gifted Student:
A Manual for Program Improvement*! A keport of the
Southern Regional Project for Education of the
Gifted, 1962.
Spearman, C. "The Factor Theory and Its Troubles,
Adequacy of Proof," Journal of Educational
Psychology, 25:310-319, 1934.
Stalnaker, John M. "Methods of Identification— The
Complexity of the Problem," The Identification and
Education of the Academically Talented Student in
the American Secondary School. The Conference
Report. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, 1958.
State of California. California Administrative Code:
Title V--Education"! 199 . ll. Sacramento, Calif.,
tsgt.----------
Stenquist, J, L. "Baltimore's Plan for Superior
Pupils," Nation's Schools, 28:20-22, 1941.
Strang, Ruth (Chairman). "A Symposium: The Gifted
Child," Journal of Teacher Education, 5:218-232,
1.954.
Sumption, Merle R., and Evelyn M. Luecking. Education
of the Gifted. New York: The Ronald Press Co.,
t j& t . -----------
Sumption, Merle R., Dorothy Norris, and Lewis M.
Terman. "Special Education for the Gifted Child,"
The Education of Exceptional Children. Forty-
ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part II. Ed. Nelson B. Henry.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950.
Terman, L. M., et. al. Genetic Studies of Genius.
Vol. I. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press, 1925.
Thomson, G. H. The Factorial Analysis of Human
Ability. New York: Houghton Mifflin (to., 1939.
Thorndike, R. L. Some Methodological Issues in the
Study of Creativity. Proceedings of the 1962
Invitational Conference on Testing Problems.
Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service,
1963.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
116
Thurstone, L. L. "Multiple Factor Analysis,"
Psychological Review. 1931, pp. 406-427.
_______ . Multiple-Factor Analysis. Chicago:
University of Chicago tress, T947.
_____ . The Vectors of Mind. Chicago: University
of Chicago fress, 1935.
_______. Guiding Creative Talent. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962.
Torrance, E. P. "Exploring in Creative Thinking in
the Early School Years: A Progress Report,"
Scientific Creativity: Its Recognition and
Development. Ed. C. W. Taylor and F. Barron.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963.
Wallach, Michael A., and Nathan Kogan. Modes of
Thinking in Young Children. New YorTTi Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1965.
Witty, Paul A. "Some Considerations in the Education
of Gifted Children," Educational Administration
and Supervision, 26:5T2-521, 1940.
Yamamoto, K. "A Further Analysis of the Role of
Creative Thinking in High School Achievement,"
Journal of Psychology, 58:277-283, 1964.
. "Effects of Restriction of Range and Test
Unreliability on Correlation Between Measures of
Intelligence and Creative Thinking," British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 35:300-305,
1965.
. "Role of Creative Thinking and Intelligence
in High School Achievement," Psychological
Reports. 14:783-789, 1964.
A P P E N D I C E S
117
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
118
119
TABLE 8
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR STATE
GIFTED BOYS AND GIRLS
Variable
State Gifted Boys
N = 129
Mean S.D.
State Gifted
N = 98
Mean
Girls
S.D.
Scholastic
Henmon-Nelson 139.20 11.57 141.72 9.94
Vocabulary 51.59 5.31 53.08 4.92
Level of Comprehension 28.60 2.66 28.35 1.74
Speed of Comprehension 52.74 5.13 53.73 4.79
English Expression 68.88 6.75 70.09 7.82
Quantitative Thinking 28.47 2.89 26.30 4.12
G.P.A. 3.46 .32 3.64 .27
Age 16.90 .41 16.90 .43
Tests of Creativity
Making Objects 56.17 14.08 58.07 10.83
Utility Test (fluency) 29.46 8.69 28.44 7.12
Utility Test (flexibility) 19.32 7.12 20.78 7.11
Figure Production 28.95 8.82 32.19 7.06
Seeing Problems 23.42 7.39 25.99 24.53
Symbol Productions 32.97 11.73 34.78 11.90
Object Synthesis 12.11 4.56 13.30 3.48
Creativity Total 173.49 38.02 184.30 26.09
Af f iliat ion-Leader ship
Number of Student
Body Offices .13 .36 .06 .24
Number of Other Offices .61 .86 .78 .80
Number of Clubs 2.59 1.86 3.72 2.03
Parent Education
Father Attended College .76 .43 .70 .46
Father Graduated College .60 .49 .53 .50
Mother Attended College . 64 .48 .65 .48
Mother Graduated College .43 .50 .37 .49
120
TABLE 9
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR
LOS ANGELES GIFTED
BOYS AND GIRLS
Variable
L. A. Gifted Boys
N = 74
Mean S.D.
L. A. Gifted
N = 89
Mean
Girls
S.D.
Scholastic
Henmon-Nelson 118.38 9.46 118.80 9.24
Vocabulary 43.70 5.98 46.36 6.36
Level of Comprehension 26.39 2.48 26.98 3.39
Speed of Comprehension 45.30 6.71 46.79 6.80
English Expression 60.64 7.42 64.43 6.72
Quantitative Thinking 24.19 4.62 21.13 5.63
G.P.A. 3.34 .34 17.10 .41
Age
Tests of Creativity
Making Objects 53.80 15.01 54.82 11.82
Utility Test (fluency) 27.32 8.13 28.13 8.37
Utility Test (flexibility) 16.40 6.97 17.13 7.13
Figure Production 27.76 8.64 30.49 7.58
Seeing Problems 20.85 6.66 23.22 6.99
Symbol Productions 29.18 12.27 29.93 10.82
Object Synthesis 11.55 4.17 12.42 5.09
Creativity Total 159.19 34.40 167.08 31.15
Affiliation-Leadership
Number of Student
Body Offices .09 .29 .21 .46
Number of Other Offices .43 .80 .68 .94
Number of Clubs 2.62 2.02 3.51 2.13
Parent Education
Father Attended College .66 .48 .75 .43
Father Graduated College .46 .50 .58 .50
Mother Attended College .51 .50 .70 .46
Mother Graduated College .26 .44 .35 .48
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS RELATED TO
METHOD OF PLACEMENT
121
TABLE 10
STATE GIFTED--PLACEMENT ON THE BASIS OF GROUP
INTELLIGENCE AND GROUP QUANTITATIVE TESTS
Variable Description Variable No. N Mean S.D.
Sex 1 38 0.842 0.370
Age 2 38 1690.026 35.113
Grade Point Average 3 38 352.395 26.162
Making Objects 4 38 59.658 11.078
Utility Test (fluency) 5 38 31.658 9.324
Utility Test (flexibility) 6 38 20.263 6.919
Figure Production 7 38 29.447 7.863
Seeing Problems 8 38 23.553 6.709
Symbol Productions 9 38 32.658 12.175
Object Synthesis 10 38 13.053 4.954
Creativity Total 11 38 177.947 32.869
Student Body Offices 16 38 0.132 0.343
Other Offices 17 38 0.816 0.926
Henmon-Nelson 18 38 135.132 9.364
Coop. Vocabulary 19 38 46.895 4.441
Coop. Comprehens ion 20 38 27.500 2.115
Coop. Speed 21 38 48.132 4.467
Coop. English 22 38 66.026 6.680
ITED-4 Quantitative 23 38 29.342 1.729
Father Attended College 24 38 0.737 0.446
Father Graduated College 25 38 0.526 0.506
Mother Attended College 26 38 0.605 0.495
Mother Graduated College 27 38 0.395 0.495
Number of Clubs 28 38 2.474 1.640
122
TABLE 11
STATE GIFTED— PLACEMENT ON THE BASIS OF GROUP
INTELLIGENCE AND GROUP VERBAL TESTS
Variable Description Variable No. N Mean S.D.
Sex 1 69 0.435 0.499
Age 2 69 1699.609 33.111
Grade Point Average 3 69 349.493 32.638
Making Objects 4 69 57.870 12.875
Utility Test (fluency) 5 69 28.333 7.559
Utility Test (flexibility) 6 69 20.304 7.343
Figure Production 7 69 30.884 8.224
Seeing Problems 8 69 25.942 6.202
Symbol Productions 9 69 36.058 12.498
Object Synthesis 10 69 13.058 3.884
Creativity Total 11 69 183.594 32.670
Student Body Offices 16 69 0.101 0.304
Other Offices 17 69 0.783 0.937
Henmon-Nelson 18 69 140.333 7.644
Coop. Vocabulary 19 69 53.826 3.773
Coop. Comprehension 20 69 28.638 1.393
Coop. Speed 21 69 53.986 3.931
Coop. English 22 69 70.362 8.002
ITED-4 Quantitative 23 69 23.826 3.063
Father Attended College 24 69 0.696 0.464
Father Graduated College 25 69 0.522 0.503
Mother Attended College 26 69 0.638 0.484
Mother Graduated College 27 69 0.362 0.484
Number of Clubs 28 69 3.362 2.301
123
TABLE 12
STATE GIFTED--PLACEMENT ON THE BASIS OF GROUP INTELLIGENCE,
GROUP VERBAL, AND GROUP QUANTITATIVE TESTS
Variable Description Variable No. N Mean S.D.
Sex 1 74 0.541 0.502
Age 2 74 1691.176 46.887
Grade Point Average 3 74 360.973 31.687
Making Objects 4 74 57.216 11.683
Utility Test (fluency) 5 74 29.419 6.861
Utility Test (flexibility) 6 74 19.797 6.689
Figure Production 7 74 31.365 7.844
Seeing Problems 8 74 24.676 6.432
Symbol Productions 9 74 32.986 11.485
Object Synthesis 10 74 12.608 3.614
Creativity Total 11 74 179.581 30.568
Student Body Offices 16 73 0.096 0.296
Other Offices 17 73 0.603 0.702
Henmon-Nelson 18 74 144.932 10.158
Coop. Vocabulary 19 74 54.622 3.234
Coop. Comprehension 20 74 29.297 2.846
Coop. Speed 21 74 56.081 2.663
Coop. English 22 74 71.378 6.076
ITED-4 Quantitative 23 74 29.824 1.683
Father Attended College 24 74 0.811 0.394
Father Graduated College 25 74 0.622 0.488
Mother Attended College 26 73 0.699 0.462
Mother Graduated College 27 72 0.458 0.502
Number of Clubs 28 74 3.149 1.803
TABLE 13
STATE GIFTED--PLACEMENT ON THE BASIS OF
INDIVIDUAL INTELLIGENCE TESTS
Variable Description Variable No. N Mean S.D.
Sex 1 15 0.467 0.516
Age 2 15 1702.467 36.770
Grade Point Average 3 15 345.867 30.104
Making Objects 4 15 54.400 15.905
Utility Test (fluency) 5 15 26.333 7.650
Utility Test (flexibility) 6 15 18.933 6.692
Figure Production 7 15 28.000 8.281
Seeing Problems 8 15 22.667 6.488
Symbol Production 9 15 33.800 11.346
Object Synthesis 10 15 12.733 4.431
Creativity Total 11 15 170.067 35.451
Student Body Offices 16 15 0. 0.
Other Offices 17 15 0.867 0.915
Henmon-Nelson 18 15 121.333 7.257
Coop. Vocabulary 19 15 47.267 6.787
Coop. Comprehension 20 15 27.000 1.964
Coop. Speed 21 15 47.733 4.543
Coop. English 22 15 61.733 4.636
ITED-4 Quantitative 23 15 25.467 4.470
Father Attended College 24 15 0.667 0.488
Father Graduated College 25 15 0.533 0.516
Mother Attended College 26 15 0.733 0.458
Mother Graduated College 27 15 0.267 0.458
Number of Clubs 28 15 3.467 2.416
TABLE 14
STATE GIFTED--PLACEMENT ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL INTELLIGENCE,
GROUP INTELLIGENCE, AND GROUP QUANTITATIVE TESTS
Variable Description Variable No. N Mean S.D.
Sex 1 12 0.750 0.452
Age 2 12 1663.750 48.636
Grade Point Average 3 12 344.750 28.140
Making Objects 4 12 52.083 18.028
Utility Test (fluency) 5 12 27.250 10.498
Utility Test (flexibility) 6 12 17.583 6.908
Figure Production 7 12 30.417 7.115
Seeing Problems 8 12 23.667 7.190
Symbol Production 9 12 32.250 10.323
Object Synthesis 10 12 11.917 4.641
Creativity Total 11 12 167.917 42.005
Student Body Offices 16 12 0.167 0.577
Other Offices 17 12 0.417 0.515
Henmon-Nelson 18 12 142.083 8.857
Coop. Vocabulary 19 12 46.667 4.479
Coop. Comprehension 20 12 27.417 1.929
Coop. Speed 21 12 48.917 6.142
Coop. English 22 12 66.667 6.919
ITED-4 Quantitative 23 12 29.583 1.311
Father Attended College 24 12 0.583 0.515
Father Graduated College 25 12 0.417 0.515
Mother Attended College 26 12 0.333 0.492
Mother Graduated College 27 12 0.167 0.389
Number of Clubs 28 12 2.833 2.125
126
TABLE 15
STATE GIFTED--PLACEMENT ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL INTELLIGENCE,
GROUP INTELLIGENCE, AND GROUP VERBAL TESTS
Variahle Description Variable No.' N Mean S.D.
Sex 1 5 0.400 0.548
Age 2 5 1666.400 52.890
Grade Point Average 3 5 348.200 32.058
Making Objects 4 5 54.200 13.442
Utility Test (fluency) 5 5 26.000 14.142
Utility Test (flexibility) 6 5 22.000 12.708
Figure Production 7 5 28.000 16.047
Seeing Problems 8 5 22.000 10.198
Symbol Production 9 5 34.200 10.895
Object Synthesis 10 5 9.800 6.458
Creativity Total 11 5 170.200 61.844
Student Body Offices 16 5 0.200 0.447
Other Offices 17 5 0.400 0.548
Henmon-Nelson 18 5 143.600 12.361
Coop. Vocabulary 19 5 53.600 4.037
Coop. Comprehension 20 5 28.400 1.817
Coop. Speed 21 5 55.400 2.302
Coop. English 22 5 68.600 2.608
ITED-4 Quantitative 23 5 25.400 1.342
Father Attended College 24 5 0.800 0.447
Father Graduated College 25 5 0.800 0.447
Mother Attended College 26 5 0.600 0.548
Mother Graduated College 27 5 0.600 0.548
Number of Clubs 28 5 2.400 1.517
TABLE 16
STATE GIFTED--PLACEMENT ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL INTELLIGENCE,
GROUP INTELLIGENCE, GROUP QUANTITATIVE AND VERBAL TESTS
Variable Description Variable No. N Mean S.D.
Sex 1 14 0.643 0.497
Age 2 14 1662.357 48.157
Grade Point Average 3 14 359.000 35.758
Making Objects 4 14 52.214 13.215
Utility Test (fluency) 5 14 28.643 7.702
Utility Test (flexibility) 6 14 20.571 8.262
Figure Production 7 14 28.143 9.421
Seeing Problems 8 14 23.071 6.833
Symbol Production 9 14 30.500 11.481
Object Synthesis 10 14 10.857 4.348
Creativity Total 11 14 164.643 36.380
Student Body Offices 16 14 0.071 0.267
Other Offices 17 14 0.429 0.938
Henmon-Nelson 18 14 147.143 10.220
Coop. Vocabulary 19 14 55.857 2.349
Coop. Comprehension 20 14 28.786 2.392
Coop. Speed 21 14 56.143 3.718
Coop. English 22 14 74.214 3.945
ITED-4 Quantitative 23 14 30.000 1.754
Father Attended College 24 14 0.714 0.469
Father Graduated College 25 14 0.714 0.469
Mother Attended College 26 14 0.714 0.469
Mother Graduated College 27 14 0.643 0.497
Number of Clubs 28 14 3.000 2.000
128
TABLE 17
LOS ANGELES GIFTED--PLACEMENT ON THE BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
AND COMPETENCE IN SUBJECT FIELD
Variable Description Variable No. N Mean S.D.
Sex 1 52 0.558 0.502
Age 2 52 1730.673 66.873
Grade Point Average 3 52 327.673 34.964
Making Objects 4 52 51.442 12.769
Utility Test (fluency) 5 52 27.942 7.787
Utility Test (flexibility) 6 52 16.750 7.087
Figure Production 7 52 28.904 8.050
Seeing Problems 8 52 22.154 7.204
Symbol Production 9 52 27.462 11.830
Object Synthesis 10 52 12.308 4.578
Creativity Total 11 52 158.788 34.625
Student Body Offices 16 52 0.173 0.382
Other Offices 17 52 0.558 0.873
Henmon-Nelson 18 52 113.192 8.367
Coop. Vocabulary 19 52 42.173 5.625
Coop. Comprehension 20 52 25.769 2.647
Coop. Speed 21 52 42.500 6.185
Coop. English 22 52 59.058 7.560
ITED-4 Quantitative 23 52 20.615 5.964
Father Attended College 24 52 0.808 0.398
Father Graduated College 25 52 0.635 0.486
Mother Attended College 26 52 0.673 0.474
Mother Graduated College 27 52 0.404 0.495
Number of Clubs 28 52 2.769 2.175
129
TABLE 18
LOS ANGELES GIFTED--PLACEMENT ON THE BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS,
COMPETENCE IN SUBJECT FIELD, AND INTELLIGENCE TESTS
Variable Description Variable No. N Mean S.D.
Sex 1 2 0. 0.
Age 2 2 1705.000 0.
Grade Point Average 3 2 349.000 7.071
Making Objects 4 2 49.000 22.627
Utility Test (fluency) 5 2 42.000 1.414
Utility Test (flexibility) 6 2 15.500 0.707
Figure Production 7 2 33.500 6.364
Seeing Problems 8 2 22.000 16.971
Symbol Production 9 2 21.500 12.021
Object Synthesis 10 2 12.000 2.828
Creativity Total 11 2 148.500 19.092
Student Body Offices 16 2 0. 0.
Other Offices 17 2 0.500 0.707
Henmon-Nelson 18 2 130.000 0.
Coop. Vocabulary 19 2 50.500 9.192
Coop. Comprehension 20 2 28.500 2.121
Coop. Speed 21 2 51.000 9.899
Coop. English 22 2 73.000 5.657
ITED-4 Quantitative 23 2 21.000 5.657
Father Attended College 24 2 0.500 0.707
Father Graduated College 25 2 0. 0.
Mother Attended College 26 2 1.000 0.
Mother Graduated College 27 2 0.500 0.707
Number of Clubs 28 2 4.500 2.121
130
TABLE 19
LOS ANGELES GIFTED— PLACEMENT ON THE BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS,
COMPETENCE IN SUBJECT FIELD, AND ACHIEVEMENT TESTS
Variable Description Variable No. N Mean S.D.
Sex 1 98 0.429 0.497
Age 2 98 1701.704 33.893
Grade Point Average 3 98 342.980 32.800
Making Objects 4 98 56.398 13.413
Utility Test (fluency) 5 98 27.796 9.229
Utility Test (flexibility) 6 98 17.439 6.991
Figure Production 7 98 29.959 8.297
Seeing Problems 8 98 22.276 6.608
Symbol Production 9 98 30.969 11.345
Object Synthesis 10 98 11.735 4.283
Creativity Total 11 98 168.500 31.437
Student Body Offices 16 98 0.153 0.415
Other Offices 17 98 0.612 0.915
Henmon-Nelson 18 98 119.469 7.585
Coop. Vocabulary 19 98 46.224 6.123
Coop. Comprehension 20 98 27.082 3.184
Coop. Speed 21 98 47.561 6.543
Coop. English 22 98 64.020 6.536
ITED-4 Quantitative 23 98 23.337 5.064
Father Attended College 24 98 0.653 0.478
Father Graduated College 25 98 0.480 0.502
Mother Attended College 26 98 0.571 0.497
Mother Graduated College 27 98 0.224 0.419
Number of Clubs 28 98 3.255 2.032
TABLE 20
LOS ANGELES GIFTED— PLACEMENT ON THE BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS,
COMPETENCE IN SUBJECT FIELD, ACHIEVEMENT,
AND INTELLIGENCE TESTS
Variable Description Variable No. N Mean S.D.
Sex 1 11 0.273 0.467
Age 2 11 1686.364 38.813
Grade Point Average 3 11 355.273 26.522
Making Objects 4 11 50.909 12.177
Utility Test (fluency) 5 11 24.091 6.024
Utility Test (flexibility) 6 11 13.818 6.113
Figure Production 7 11 24.727 6.828
Seeing Problems 8 11 20.364 6.622
Symbol Production 9 11 29.636 10.191
Object Synthesis 10 11 11.091 3.618
Creativity Total 11 11 150.545 29.463
Student Body Offices 16 11 0.182 0..405
Other Offices 17 11 0.273 0.647
Henmon-Nelson 18 11 134.455 5.336
Coop. Vocabulary 19 11 48.727 5.901
Coop. Comprehension 20 11 27.545 2.339
Coop. Speed 21 11 49.364 4.501
Coop. English 22 11 66.364 5.124
ITED-4 Quantitative 23 11 24.545 3.045
Father Attended College 24 11 0.818 0.405
Father Graduated College 25 11 0.545 0.522
Mother Attended College 26 11 0.636 0.505
Mother Graduated College 27 11 0.545 0.522
Number of Clubs 28 11 3.182 2.676
APPENDIX C
FACTOR ANALYSES
133
FACTOR ANALYSES
Number Variable
1 Sex
2 Age
3 G.P.A.
4 Making Objects
5 Utility Test (fluency)
6 Utility Test (flexibility)
7 Figure Production
8 Seeing Problems
9 Symbol Production
10 Object Synthesis
11 Student Body Offices
12 Other Offices
13 Henmon-Nelson
14 Vocabulary
15 Level of Comprehension
16 Speed of Comprehension
17 English Expression
18 Quantitative Thinking
19 Father Went to College
20 Father Graduated from College
21 Mother Went to College
22 Mother Graduated from College
23 Number of Clubs
134
TABLE 21
CORRELATION MATRIX— STATE GIFTED
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 1.0000 0.0255 -0.2902 -0.0770 0.0606 -0.1051 -0.1938 -0.1940 -0.0743 -0.1394
2 0.0255 1.0000 -0.1249 -0.1120 -0.0326 -0.1258 -0.0733 -0.0245 -0.0837 0.0088
3 -0.2902 -0.1249 1.0000 0.1183 0.0433 0.0894 0.0646 0.1119 -0.0301 0.0875
4 -0.0770 -0.1120 0.1183 1.0000 0.2556 0.2669 0.5111 0.2146 0,3299 0.2371
5 0.0606 -0.0326 0.0433 0.2556 1.0000 0.6702 0.2960 0.2766 0.1414 0.2650
6 -0.1051 -0.1258 0.0894 0.2669 0.6702 1.0000 0.3310 0.3666 0.2763 0.3954
7 -0.1938 -0.0733 0.0646 0.5111 0.2960 0.3310 1.0000 0.2838 0.2444 0.2603
8 -0.1940 -0.0245 0.1119 0.2146 0.2766 0.3666 0.2838 1.0000 0.2759 0.3569
9 -0.0743 -0.0837 -0.0301 0.3299 0.1414 0.2763 0.2444 0.2759 1.0000 0.3561
10 -0.1394 0.0088 0.0875 0.2371 0.2650 0.3954 0.2603 0.3569 0.3561 1.0000
11 0.1120 0.1121 0.1327 0.0221 0.1809 0.1286 0.1280 0.1376 0.0237 0.0183
12 -0.1043 0.1139 0.2633 0.1510 0.0523 0.0422 0.1121 0.1298 0.0544 0.1204
13 -0.1128 -0.3521 0.2193 -0.0013 0.0276 0.0616 0.0252 0.1301 0.0365 -0.0983
14 -0.1395 -0.0786 0.1735 0.0289 0.0097 0.1599 0.0536 0.1321 0.1812 0.0849
15 0.0530 0.0107 0.0379 -0.0658 0.0311 -0.0033 -0.0872 0.0051 0.0065 -0.0196
16 -0.1007 -0.0257 0.1431 0.0096 -0.0245 0.0208 0.0531 0.1057 0.0142 0.0868
17 -0.0833 -0.1165 0.1641 -0.0057 0.1018 0.1145 0.0171 0.0350 0.1742 0.1039
18 0.3009 -0.1824 0.1223 -0.0722 0.0456 -0.0655 0.0007 -0.0412 -0.0835 -0.1086
19 0.0603 0.0278 0.0853 -0.0857 -0.0041 -0.0256 0.1422 0.0287 -0.1486 0.0192
20 0.0631 0.0300 0.0347 -0.1316 0.0728 0.0289 0.0812 0.0462 -0.0910 0.0000
21 -0.0209 0.0156 0.1213 0.0316 0.2314 0.1815 0.1105 0.0196 -0.0255 0.0183
22 0.0552 -0.0104 0.0356 -0.0058 0.1916 0.1374 0.1238 0.0044 -0.0609 -0.0325
23 -0.2825 -0.0502 0.3561 0.1775 0.1196 0.1025 0.1304 0.2342 0.1594 0.1038
135
TABLE 21 (continued)
CORRELATION MATRIX— STATE GIFTED
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1 0.1120 -0.1043 -0.1128 -0.1395 0.0530 -0.1007 -0.0833 0.3009 0.0603 0.0631
2 0.1121 0.1139 -0.3521 -0.0786 0.0107 -0.0257 -0.1165 -0.1824 0.0278 0.0300
3 0.1327 0.2633 0.2193 0.1735 0.0379 0.1431 0.1641 0.1223 0.0853 0.0347
4 0.0221 0.1510 -0.0013 0.0289 -0.0658 0.0096 -0.0057 -0.0722 -0.0857 -0.1316
5 0.1809 0.0523 0.0276 0.0097 0.0311 -0.0245 0.1018 0.0456 -0.0041 0.0728
6 0.1286 0.0422 0.0616 0.1599 -0.0033 0.0208 0.1145 -0.0655 -0.0256 0.0289
7 0.1280 0.1121 0.0252 0.0536 -0.0872 0.0531 0.0171 0.0007 0.1422 0.0812
8 0.1376 0.1298 0.1301 0.1321 0.0051 0.1057 0.0350 -0.0412 0.0287 0.0462
9 0.0237 0.0544 0.0365 0.1812 0.0065 0.0142 0.1742 -0.0835 -0.1486 -0.0910
10 0.0183 0.1204 -0.0983 0.0849 -0.0196 0.0868 0.1039 -0.1086 0.0192 0.0000
11 1.0000 0.1205 0.0304 -0.0456 0.0049 0.0373 -0.0430 0.0442 0.0983 0.0838
12 0.1205 1.0000 -0.1070 -0.0610 -0.1748 -0.0335 -0.0353 -0.0340 0.0735 0.0555
13 0.0304 -0.1070 1.0000 0.4566 0.2766 0.4890 0.3876 0.2288 -0.0267 0.0211
14 -0.0456 -0.0610 0.4566 1.0000 0.2385 0.4709 0.4825 -0.0409 0.0008 0.0658
15 0.0049 -0.1748 0.2766 0.2385 1.0000 0.4353 0.1614 0.0692 0.0313 0.0491
16 0.0373 -0.0335 0.4890 0.4709 0.4353 1.0000 0.4009 0.0788 0.0572 0.0922
17 -0.0430 -0.0353 0.3876 0.4825 0.1614 0.4009 1.0000 0.1075 0.0071 0.0499
18 0.0442 -0.0340 0.2288 -0.0409 0.0692 0.0788 0.1075 1.0000 0.0349 0.0672
19 0.0983 0.0735 -0.0267 0.0008 0.0313 0.0572 0.0071 0.0349 1.0000 0.6871
20 0.0838 0.0555 0.0211 0.0658 0.0491 0.0922 0.0499 0.0672 0.6871 1.0000
21 0.2111 0.1272 0.0257 0.0085 0.0816 0.0441 0.0110 -0.0481 0.3447 0.3887
22 0.1096 0.1648 0.0907 0.0243 0.0360 0.0337 0.1008 0.0872 0.3253 0.4200
23 0.1895 0.4237 0.0150 0.0317 -0.1385 0.0107 0.0484 -0.0547 0.0673 0.0594
136
TABLE 21 (continued)
CORRELATION MATRIX--STATE GIFTED
21
1 -0.0209
2 0.0156
3 0.1213
4 0.0316
5 0.2314
6 0.1815
7 0.1105
8 0.0196
9 -0.0255
10 0.0183
11 0.2111
12 0.1272
13 0.0257
14 0.0085
15 0.0816
16 0.0441
17 0.0110
18 -0.0481
19 0.3447
20 0.3887
21 1.0000
22 0.6080
23 0.0647
22 23
.0552 -0.2825
.0104 -0.0502
.0356 0.3561
.0058 0.1775
.1916 0.1196
.1374 0.1025
.1238 0.1304
.0044 0.2342
.0609 0.1594
.0325 0.1038
.1096 0.1895
.1648 0.4237
.0907 0.0150
.0243 0.0317
.0360 -0.1385
.0337 0.0107
.1008 0.0484
.0872 -0.0547
.3253 0.0673
.4200 0.0594
.6080 0.0647
.0000 0.0999
.0999 1.0000
0
-0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
-0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
i - *
to
•vj
TABLE 22
FACTOR ANALYSIS--STATE GIFTED
E Values
Pet. Var,
PA Load.
1
3.4896
2
2.5966
3
2.5250
4
1.7314
5
1.4021
6
1.2073
7
1.0667
1 2 3 4
15.1721 11.2897 10.9781 7.5277
■ cent total variation extracted.
5
6.0961
6
5.2493
7
4.6380
1 ■
-0.3011
2
-0.1779
3
0.3892
4
0.4694
5
0.5608
6
0.6560
7
0.5634
8
0.5625
9
0.4332
10
0.5001
11
0.2466
12
0.2776
13
0.3360
14
0.4034
15
0.1114
16
0.3405
17
0.3710
18
-0.0115
19
0.1886
20
0.2306
21
0.3587
22
0.3241
23
0.4207
1
0.6973
2
0.6868
3
0.5780
4
0.5013
5
0.7369
6
0.7452
7
0.5521
8
0.4214
9
0.4563
10
0.5003
11
0.5456
12
0.5444
13
0.6931
14
0.6085
15
0.4688
16
0.6709
17
0.4627
18
0.7036
19
0.7596
20
0.7550
21
0.6767
22
0.6302
23
0.6232
1
11.0379
2
11.5488
3
10.1647
4
8.4367
5
6.0693
6
5.9900
7
7.7002
Commun.
Pet.Var.
138
TABLE 22 (continued)
FACTOR ANALYSIS--STATE GIFTED
v Loan. -
1 2 3
1 -0.1143 -0.1316 0.0566
2 -0.0634 -0.0932 0.0330
3 -0.0206 0.2322 0.0122
4 0.6462 -0.1051 -0.0686
5 0.3420 -0.0045 0.0164
6 0.4740 0.0760 -0.0239
7 0.6746 -0.0624 0.2097
8 0.5642 0.1453 -0.0068
9 0.6489 0.1133 -0.1383
10 0.6567 0.0692 -0.0024
11 0.0215 0.0200 0.0506
12 0.1302 -0.1652 0.1073
13 -0.0624 0.6988 -0.0256
14 0.1375 0.7438 0.0159
15 -0.1001 0.5977 0.0241
16 0.0606 0.8007 0.0716
17 0.0872 0.6538 0.0213
18 -0.0720 0.1150 0.0354
19 0.0578 0.0097 0.8498
20 0.0212 0.0775 0.8609
21 -0.1228 0.0177 0.6069
22 -0.1311 0.0265 0.6401
23 0.1830 -0.0361 0.0342
4 5 6 7
0.3594 0.7147 0.1487 -0.0399
0.0052 -0.0955 0.8125 0.0604
-0.6963 -0.0302 -0.1885 -0.0471
-0.1331 0.0235 -0.2084 -0.0794
0.0018 0.1201 -0.0022 -0.7779
0.0134 -0.0912 -0.0690 -0.7078
-0.0917 0.0173 -0.1756 -0.0978
-0.2071 -0.0242 0.1140 -0.1596
0.0257 -0.0494 -0.0002 -0.0137
-0.0105 -0.1352 0.1813 -0.1137
-0.3658 0.3920 0.3869 -0.3241
-0.6782 -0.0003 0.1679 0.0219
-0.1131 0.1245 -0.4084 -0.0715
-0.0108 -0.1791 -0.0605 0.0138
0.1886 0.1135 0.2115 -0.0882
-0.0514 0.0419 0.0989 0.0828
-0.0383 -0.0308 -0.1511 -0.0435
-0.0727 0.7636 -0.3055 0.0475
-0.0408 0.0724 0.0551 0.1552
0.0055 0.0595 0.0507 0.0364
-0.1199 -0.1113 0.0199 -0.5156
-0.1057 0.0017 -0.0991 -0.4262
-0.7599 -0.0959 -0.0079 -0.0213
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TABLE 23
CORRELATION MATRIX— LOS ANGELES GIFTED
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1.0000 0.2365 -0.1338 -0.0383 -0.0465 -0.0517 -0.1674 -0.1712 -0.0329
0.2365 1.0000 -0.1881 -0.1679 -0.1523 -0.0776 -0.0808 0.0192 -0.1808
-0.1338 -0.1881 1.0000 0.2442 0.0713 0.2045 0.1945 0.2755 0.1041
-0.0383 -0.1679 0.2442 1.0000 0.2874 0.1510 0.4791 0.0914 0.3565
-0.0465 -0.1523 0.0713 0.2874 1.0000 0.5875 0.3771 0.2789 0.2970
-0.0517 -0.0776 0.2045 0.1510 0.5875 1.0000 0.3307 0.3476 0.2810
-0.1674 -0.0808 0.1945 0.4791 0.3771 0.3307 1.0000 0.1495 0.2735
-0.1712 0.0192 0.2755 0.0914 0.2789 0.3476 0.1495 1.0000 0.2054
-0.0329 -0.1808 0.1041 0.3565 0.2970 0.2810 0.2735 0.2054 1.0000
-0.0927 -0.0402 0.1168 0.0308 0.2737 0.1832 0.1357 0.4187 0.2555
-0.1486 -0.0320 0.1230 0.1283 0.1048 0.0507 0.1238 0.0807 0.2299
-0.1433 -0.0807 0.0748 0.0535 0.0762 0.0380 0.1128 0.1186 -0.0285
-0.0225 -0.3419 0.1690 0.1511 0.1183 0.0859 0.0814 0.0282 0.1123
-0.2102 -0.1803 0.2212 0.0471 0.0990 0.1018 0.0567 0.0577 0.0810
-0.0970 -0.1803 0.1718 0.0594 0.1183 0.1504 -0.0146 0.1573 0.0727
-0.1097 -0.0895 0.1497 0.0552 0.0200 0.0295 0.0863 0.1210 0.0336
-0.2603 -0.1131 0.2554 0.0896 0.0543 0.0917 0.0952 0.0999 0.1392
0.2823 -0.0536 0.2181 0.1642 0.0165 0.0714 0.0300 0.1354 0.1411
-0.0996 -0.1131 -0.1640 -0.0543 0.0641 0.0188 -0.1816 -0.0983 -0.0335
-0.1245 -0.0658 -0.1623 -0.0459 0.0256 -0.0055 -0.0477 -0.0297 -0.0190
-0.1872 -0.1095 0.0445 -0.0148 0.1689 0.0997 -0.0064 0.1064 0.0288
-0.0989 0.0018 0.0478 -0.0108 0.2003 0.1341 -0.0156 0.0706 -0.0226
-0.2106 -0.2405 0.2753 0.1565 0.1557 0.1756 0.2458 0.2001 0.1661
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
TABLE 23 (continued)
CORRELATION MATRIX--LOS ANGELES GIFTED
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
i
18 19
-0.1486 -0.1433 -0.0225 -0.2102 -0.0970 -0.1097 -0.2603 0.2823 -0.0996
-0.0320 -0.0807 -0.3419 -0.1803 -0.1803 -0.0895 -0.1131 -0.0536 -0.1131
0.1230 0.0748 0.1690 0.2212 0.1718 0.1497 0.2554 0.2181 -0.1640
0.1283 0.0535 0.1511 0.0471 0.0594 0.0552 0.0896 0.1642 -0.0543
0.1048 0.0762 0.1183 0.0990 0.1183 0.0200 0.0543 0.0165 0.0641
0.0507 0.0380 0.0859 0.1018 0.1504 0.0295 0.0917 0.0714 0.0188
0.1238 0.1128 0.0814 0.0567 -0.0146 0.0863 0.0952 0.0300 -0.1816
0.0807 0.1186 0.0282 0.0577 0.1573 0.1210 0.0999 0.1354 -0.0983
0.2299 -0.0285 0.1123 0.0810 0.0727 0.0336 0.1392 0.1411 -0.0335
0.1682 -0.0727 0.0244 0.0759 0.0663 0.0372 0.0351 0.0523 -0.0305
1.0000 0.0730 0.0468 -0.0930 0.0179 0.0459 0.2032 0.1299 -0.1191
0.0730 1.0000 -0.0906 -0.0391 0.0599 0.0359 0.0061 -0.0564 0.0434
0.0468 -0.0906 1.0000 0.3929 0.2100 0.3105 0.3475 0.3602 0.0241
-0.0930 -0.0391 0.3929 1.0000 0.3091 0.5231 0.4228 -0.0217 0.1791
0.0179 0.0599 0.2100 0.3091 1.0000 0.3139 0.2699 0.0903 0.1281
0.0459 0.0359 0.3105 0.5231 0.3139 1.0000 0.3555 0.1185 -0.0196
0.2032 0.0061 0.3475 0.4228 0.2699 0.3555 1.0000 0.1273 0.0246
0.1299 -0.0564 0.3602 -0.0217 0.0903 0.1185 0.1273 1.0000 -0.2225
-0.1191 0.0434 0.0241 0.1791 0.1281 -0.0196 0.0246 -0.2225 1.0000
-0.0839 0.1109 -0.0387 0.0367 0.0237 -0.0591 -0.0333 -0.2072 0.6727
0.0332 0.0852 0.0465 0.1915 0.0328 0.0428 0.0425 -0.0682 0.4404
0.0342 -0.0534 0.0038 0.0853 -0.0203 -0.0974 -0.0390 -0.0916 0.3353
0.3576 0.3883 0.0625 0.0139 0.0571 0.1175 0.1188 0.0003 0.0076
TABLE 23 (continued)
CORRELATION MATRIX--LOS ANGELES GIFTED
21 22 23
1 -0.1872 -0.0989 -0.2106
2 -0.1095 0.0018 -0.2405
3 0.0445 0.0478 0.2753
4 -0.0148 -0.0108 0.1565
5 0.1689 0.2003 0.1557
6 0.0997 0.1341 0.1756
7 -0.0064 -0.0156 0.2458
8 0.1064 0.0706 0.2001
9 0.0288 -0.0226 0.1661
10 0.0616 0.0524 0.0930
11 0.0332 0.0342 0.3576
12 0.0852 -0.0534 0.3883
13 0.0465 0.0038 0.0625
14 0.1915 0.0853 0.0139
15 0.0328 -0.0203 0.0571
16 0.0428 -0.0974 0.1175
17 0.0425 -0.0390 0.1188
18 -0.0682 -0.0916 0.0003
19 0.4404 0.3353 0.0076
20 0.3593 0.3096 -0.0551
21 1.0000 0.5280 0.1010
22 0.5280 1.0000 0.0470
23 0.1010 0.0470 1.0000
142
TABLE 24
FACTOR ANALYil>IS--LOS ANGELES GIFTED
I
E Values
Pet. Var.
PA Load.
Commun.
Pet.Var.
1
3.7139
2
2.6026
3
2.1882
4
1.5950
5
1.3315
6
1.2704
7
1.1083
1
16.1475
cent total
2 3 4
11.3158 9.5140 6.9348
variation extracted.
5
5.7892
6
5.5234
7
4.8185
1
-0.3456
2
-0.4046
3
0.5152
4
0.4646
5
0.5573
6
0.5389
7
0.5067
8
0.4853
9
0.4925
10
0.3676
11
0.3235
12
0.1732
13
0.4516
14
0.4658
15
0.3946
16
0.4131
17
0.4911
18
0.2335
19
0.0201
20
-0.0234
21
0.2396
22
0.1378
23
0.4727
1
0.6722
2
0.3920
3
0.4015
4
0.5953
5
0.6619
6
0.6270
7
0.6183
8
0.6543
9
0.4906
10
0.5748
11
0.6273
12
0.7236
13
0.6285
14
0.6939
15
0.4178
16
0.5514
17
0.5316
18
0.7576
19
0.7148
20
0.6151
21
0.6196
22
0.5697
23
0.6693
1
10.0645
2
10.6643
3
11.5997
4
6.5799
5
8.3309
6
6.3621
7
6.4341
143
TABLE 24 (continued)
FACTOR ANALYSIS--LOS ANGELES GIFTED
v iioaa. -■
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 -0.0827 -0.1236 0.2951 0.1462 -0.0587 0.6511 0.3379
2 -0.3563 -0.1773 0.3236 0.1443 0.2587 -0.0295 0.2007
3 0.1336 -0.1023 -0.3372 -0.3030 0.2372 0.2167 -0.2538
4 0.7409 -0.0639 -0.0485 -0.0751 -0.1061 0.1182 -0.0948
5 0.6186 0.1961 -0.0227 -0.0428 0.4635 0.0235 0.1520
6 0.4843 0.1059 -0.0760 -0.1189 0.5560 0.0748 0.2159
7 0.7283 -0.1540 -0.0240 -0.1516 0.1256 -0.1554 -0.0252
8 0.0461 -0.0066 -0.1281 -0.1950 0.7678 0.0376 -0.0821
9 0.5866 0.0065 -0.0438 0.1652 0.1848 0.0555 -0.2829
10 0.0885 0.0122 -0.0387 0.2205 0.6575 -0.0825 -0.2786
11 0.1049 -0.0277 0.0412 -0.1096 0.1002 0.0337 -0.7686
12 0.0185 0.0456 0.0212 -0.8424 -0.0159 -0.0915 0.0493
13 0.2182 0.0774 -0.5942 0.1221 -0.1543 0.4094 -0.1246
14 0.0545 0.1408 -0.7950 0.1163 0.0468 -0.1232 0.0902
15 -0.0000 0.0522 -0.5730 -0.1549 0.1623 0.0788 0.1738
16 -0.0372 -0.1084 -0.7264 -0.0739 0.0587 -0.0098 0.0411
17 0.0571 -0.0359 -0.6634 0.0311 0.0201 -0.0610 -0.2862
18 0.0641 -0.1429 -0.1452 0.0004 0.0637 0.8239 -0.1707
19 -0.0315 0.7996 -0.0982 0.0018 -0.1459 -0.1374 0.1567
20 0.0128 0.7347 0.0323 -0.0472 -0.1448 -0.1755 0.1419
21 -0.0177 0.7553 -0.0825 -0.0731 0.1409 0.0011 -0.1298
22 -0.0079 0.7084 0.0832 0.0595 0.2018 0.0581 -0.1152
23 0.2006 0.0399 -0.0674 -0.6551 0.0959 -0.0423 -0.4275
144
APPENDIX D
DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
145
DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
Variable
Number Assessment
1 GPA
2 Making Objects
3 Utility Test (fluency)
4 Utility Test (flexibility)
5 Figure Production
6 Seeing Problems
7 Symbol Production
8 Object Synthesis
9 Other Offices
10 Henmon-Nelson
11 Vocabulary
12 Quantitative Thinking
13 Number of Clubs
146
TABLE 25
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
STEP NUMBER 0
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees of freedom 1 388
1 19.8322 3 2.1544 5 1.5190 7 11.7524 9 1.6274 11 147.2237 1
2 3.8877 4 17.1498 6 12.4158 8 2.9404 10 420.8857 12 119.8345
Function
SG NSG
Variable
Constant
-0. -0.
Number of cases classified into group -
SG NSG
Group
SG 0 227
NSG 0 163
0.0217
147
148
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
STEP NUMBER 1
VARIABLE ENTERED 10
Variables included and F to remove - Degrees of freedom 1 388
10 420.8857
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees of freedom 1 387
1 0.0681 3 0.0175 5 0.0276 7 2.0537 9 5.2749 12 13.9545
2 0.3150 4 3.2829 6 1.3983 8 3.9820 11 6.9306 13 0.3224
U-Statistic 0.47967 Degrees of freedom 1 1 388
Approximate F 420.88573 Degrees of freedom 1 388.00
F Matrix - Degrees of freedom 1 388
Group
SG
Group
NSG 420.88570
Function
SG NSG
Variable
10 1.32370 1.11911
Constant
-92.85156 -66.36734
Number of cases classified into group -
SG NSG
Group
SG 197 30
NSG 19 144
149
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
STEP NUMBER 2
VARIABLE ENTERED 12
Variables included and F to Remove - Degrees of freedom 1 387
10 251.6457 12 13.9545
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees of freedom 1 386
1 0.0407 3 0.0077 5 0.0249 7 1.8538 9 5.3625 13 0.1794
2 0.1756 4 3.4442 6 1.1120 8 3.8213 11 10.5735
U-Statistic 0.46298 Degrees of freedom 2 1 388
Approximate F 224.44632 Degrees of freedom 2 387.00
F Matrix - Degrees of freedom 2 387
Group
SG
Group
NSG 224.44631
Function
Variable SG NSG
10 1.25420 1.06537
12 0.57116 0.44160
Constant
-95.83892 -68.15314
Number of cases classified into group -
SG NSG
Group
SG 202 25
NSG 20 143
150
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
STEP NUMBER 3
VARIABLE ENTERED II
Variables included and F to remove - Degrees of freedom 1 386
10 115.3921 11 10.5735 12 17.6445
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees of freedom 1
1 0.4881 3 0.0001 5 0.0018 7 0.9307 9 5.
2 0.1235 4 2.3369 6 0.6407 8 2.1903 13 0.
U-Statistic 0.45063 Degrees of freedom 3 1 388
Approximate F 156.85692 Degrees of freedom 3 386.00
F Matrix - Degrees of freedom 3 386
Group
SG
Group
NSG 156.85690
Function
SG NSG
Variable
10 1.03754 0.87378
11 0.83792 0.74099
12 0.74212 0.59279
Constant
-104.87911 -75.22270
Number of cases classified into group -
SG NSG
Group
SG 203 24
NSG 17 146
385
3574
1818
151
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
STEP NUMBER 4
VARIABLE ENTERED 9
Variables included and F to remove - Degrees of freedom 1
9 5.3574 10 117.7567 11 10.5551 12 17.7184
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees of freedom
13 2.2553 1 1.4641 3 0.0280 5 0.0644
2 0.0078 4 1.8294 6 0.2512
7 0.7709
8 2.2472
U-Statistic 0.44445 Degrees of freedom 4 1 388
Approximate F 120.31007 Degrees of freedom 4 385.00
F Matrix - Degrees of freedom 385
Group
NSG
Variable
9
10
11
12
Group
SG
120.31004
Function
SG
2.62629
1.05692
0.84245
0.75189
NSG
2.20961
0.89008
0.74479
0.60100
Constant
Group
SG
NSG
-107.38746 •76.99824
Number of cases classified into group -
SG NSG
202
19
25
144
385
1 384
152
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
STEP NUMBER 5
VARIABLE ENTERED 13
Variables included and F to remove - Degrees of freedom 1
9 7.4453 10 119.3031 11 10.5421 12 17.1384 13 2.
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees of freedom
1 0.6923 3 0.0001 5 0.0019 7 1.2802
2 0.0856 4 2.3503 6 0.6168 8 2.8020
U-Statistic 0.44185 Degrees of freedom 5 1 388
Approximate F 97.01292 Degrees of freedom 5 384.00
F Matrix - Degrees of freedom 5 384
Group
SG
Group
NSG 97.01290
Function
Variable SG NSG
9 2.50732 1.96743
10 1.05503 0.88625
11 0.84210 0.74410
12 0.75352 0.60433
13 0.11980 0.24386
Constant
-107.41265 -77.10264
Number of cases classified into group-
SG NSG
Group
SG 202 25
NSG 19 144
384
2553
1 383
153
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
STEP NUMBER 6
VARIABLE ENTERED 8
Variables included and F to remove - Degrees of freedom 1
8 2.8020 10 122.2610 12 16.5282
9 7.9089 11 8.6841 13 2.8101
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees of freedom
1 0.9230 3 0.1955 5 0.1679 7 0.4133
2 0.0031 4 1.0463 6 0.0317
U-Statistic 0.43865 Degrees of freedom 6 1 388
Approximate F 81.69049 Degrees of freedom 6 383.00
F Matrix - Degrees of freedom 6 383
Group
SG
Group
NSG 81.69048
Function
SG NSG
Variable
8 0.77452 0.71177
9 2.75373 2.19387
10 1.10062 0.92814
11 0.75001 0.65946
12 0.73146 0.58405
13 -0.07669 0.06329
Constant
-112.57075 -81.45880
Number of cases classified into group -
SG NSG
Group
SG 202 25
NSG 18 145
383
1 382
154
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
STEP NUMBER 7
VARIABLE ENTERED 4
Variables included and F to remove - Degrees of freedom 1 382
4 1.0463 9 7.6144 11 8.3065 13 3.0708
8 1.4954 10 118.4275 12 16.5256
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees of freedom 1 381
1 1.0278 2 0.0117 3 1.7577 5 0.4812 6 0.0073 7 0.2307
U-Statistic 0.43745 Degrees of freedom 7 1 388
Approximate F 70.17837 Degrees of freedom 7 382.00
F Matrix - Degrees of freedom 7 382
Group
SG
Group
NSG 70.17835
Variable
Function
SG NSG
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
0.03348
0.75560
2.74224
1.09889
0.74782
0.73198
-0.08655
0.00901
0.70668
2.19078
0.92768
0.65887
0.58419
0.06064
Constant
-112.59465 -81.46053
Number of cases classified into group
SG NSG
Group
SG
NSG
201
17
26
146
155
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
STEP NUMBER 8
VARIABLE ENTERED 3
Variables included and F to remove - Degrees of freedom 1 381
3 1.7577 8 1.6943 10 118.6706 12 16.6869
4 2.6099 9 7.6175 11 7.8512 13 2.8091
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees of freedom 1
1 1.2508 2 0.0114 5 0.2455 6 0.0033 7 0
U-Statistic 0.43544 Degrees of freedom 8 1 388
Approximate F 61.74760 Degrees of freedom 8 381.00
F Matrix - Degrees of freedom 8 381
Group
SG
Group
NSG 61.74758
Function
iable
SG NSG
3 0.27920 0.31200
4 -0.17162 -0.22019
8 0.72635 0.67400
9 2.72429 2.17073
10 1.09211 0.92010
11 0.76492 0.67798
12 0.72119 0.57213
13 -0.13486 0.00665
Constant
-114.15775 -83.41240
Number of cases classified into group -
SG NSG
380
.2537
Group
SG
NSG
203
16
24
147
156
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
STEP NUMBER 9
VARIABLE ENTERED 1
Variables included and F to remove - Degrees of freedom 1
1 1.2508 4 2.9101 9 8.1089 11 8.5884 13
3 1.9792 8 1.8598 10 119.8359 12 17.7625
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees of freedom
2 0.0509 5 0.2063 6 0.0001 7 0.1588
U-Statistic 0.43401 Degrees of freedom 9 1 388
Approximate F 55.06186 Degrees of freedom 9 380.00
F Matrix - Degrees of freedom 9 380
Group
SG
Group
NSG 55.06184
Function
SG NSG
Variable
1 0.25612 0.26218
3 0.37250 0.40750
4 -0.30093 -0.35256
8 0.61013 0.55503
9 1.81794 1.24293
10 1.01920 0.84547
11 0.54753 0.45546
12 0.41215 0.25578
13 -1.21798 -1.10209
Constant
■141.77076 -112.34748
Number of cases classified into group -
SG NSG
Group
SG 203 24
NSG 15 148
380
1.7406
1 379
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
157
STEP NUMBER 10
VARIABLE ENTERED 5
Variables included and F to remove - Degrees of freedom
1 1.2088 4 3.0452 8 1.9720 10 119.7322 12
3 1.7338 5 0.2063 9 8.2177 11 8.5443 13
1 379
17.7100
1.6279
Variables not included and F to enter
2 0.2138 6 0.0013 7 0.2205
Degrees of freedom 378
U-Statistic
Approximate F
0.43377 Degrees of freedom 10 1 388
49.47280 Degrees of freedom 10 379.00
F Matrix - Degrees of freedom 10 379
Group
SG
Group
NSG 49.47278
Variable
Function
SG NSG
1 0.25430 0.26027
3 0.33603 0.36926
4 -0.33418 -0.38743
5 0.19558 0.20511
8 0.56749 0.51030
9 1.69903 1.11822
10 1.01442 0.84045
11 0.54930 0.45731
12 0.41177 0.25539
13 -1.28469 -1.17205
Constant
-142.84904 113.53350
Number of cases classified
SG NSG
Group
SG 202 25
NSG 16 147
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
158
STEP NUMBER 11
VARIABLE ENTERED 7
Variables included and F to remove - Degrees of
1 1.0910 4 2.8150 7 0.2205 9 8.2572
3 1.7136 5 0.2679 8 1.5641 10 118.8908
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees
2 0.1260 6 0.0000
U-Statistic 0.43352 Degrees of freedom
Approximate F 44.90282 Degrees of freedom
F Matrix - Degrees of : freedom 11 378
Group
SG
Group
NSG 44.90281
Function
SG NSG
Variable
1 0.25721 0.26292
3 0.33758 0.37066
4 -0.35245 -0.40407
5 0.17910 0.19011
7 0.07901 0.07197
8 0.51516 0.46264
9 1.72685 1.14356
10 1.01223 0.83846
11 0.53449 0.44381
12 0.40189 0.24638
13 -1.34586 -1.22777
Constant
- 143.19542 -113.82090
Number of cases classified into group
SG NSG
Group
SG 202 25
NSG 16 147
11 1 388
11 378.00
378
1.7540
377
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
159
STEP NUMBER 12
VARIABLE ENTERED 2
Variables included and F to remove - Degrees of freedom 1
1 1.1666 3 1.7976 5 0.3800 8 1.5939 10 118.4366 12
2 0.1260 4 2.8695 7 0.1327 9 8.1781 11 8.2481 13
Variables not included and F to enter - Degrees of freedom
6 0.0001
U-Statistic 0.43338 Degrees of freedom 12 1 388
Approximate F 41.07626 Degrees of freedom 12 377.00
F Matrix - Degrees of freedom 12 377
Group
SG
Group
NSG 41.07625
F Level insufficient for further computation
Function
Variable SG NSG
1 0.25238 0.25834
2 0.10004 0.09481
3 0.31654 0.35073
4 -0.33968 -0.39197
5 0.11506 0.12942
7 0.05247 0.04682
8 0.52703 0.47389
9 1.69380 1.11224
10 1.01137 0.83764
11 0.54296 0.45184
12 0.39892 0.24356
13 -1.34984 -1.23154
Constant
-143.77226 -114.33900
Number of cases classified into group -
SG NSG
Group
SG 202 25
NSG 16 147
377
17.3101
1.7549
376
160
TABLE 25 (continued)
STEPWISE DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY TABLE
Number of
Step Variable F Value to Variables
Number Entered Removed Enter or Remove Included U-Statistic
1 10 420.8857 1 0.4797
2 12 13.9545 2 0.4630
3 11 10.5735 3 0.4506
4 9 5.3574 4 0.4444
5 13 2.2553 5 0.4419
6 8 2.8020 6 0.4386
7 4 1.0463 7 0.4374
8 3 1.7577 8 0.4354
9 1 1.2508 9 0.4340
10 5 0.2063 10 0.4338
11 7 0.2205 11 0.4335
12 2 0.1260 12 0.4334
Finish card encountered, job terminated

Asset Metadata

Creator Handler, Harry (author)

Core Title An Analysis Of The Selection Criteria For Assignment Of Students To Advanced Placement Classes In The Los Angeles Unified School District

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Educational Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Metfessel, Newton S. (committee chair), Carnes, Earl F. (committee member), Guilford, Joy P. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-589239

Unique identifier UC11360236

Identifier 6801680.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-589239 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6801680.pdf

Dmrecord 589239

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Handler, Harry

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA