Citation
The Progressive Matrices, 1956 as a screening instrument for identifying intellectually gifted public school students

Material Information

Title:
The Progressive Matrices, 1956 as a screening instrument for identifying intellectually gifted public school students
Creator:
Webber, Genevieve Downes, 1916-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 51 leaves : ; 28cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Child psychology ( jstor )
Correlations ( jstor )
Counties ( jstor )
Intelligence tests ( jstor )
Matrices ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Screening tests ( jstor )
Special education ( jstor )
Standard deviation ( jstor )
Wechsler scales ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Special Education -- UF
Gifted children -- Education -- Florida -- Marion County ( lcsh )
Intelligence tests ( lcsh )
Special Education thesis Ph. D
Marion County ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 46-50.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Genevieve D. Webber.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator(ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
025261881 ( ALEPH )
02740076 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text














THE PROGRESSIVE M4TRICES, 1956
AS A SCREENING INSTRUV4ENT FOR IDENTIFYING INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS

















By

GENEVIEVE D. WEBBER


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRDUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVEPSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSI7Y OF FLORIDA


1975

















DEDICATION


To my family

who keep me striving to make them as proud

of me as I am of them
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The members of the committee who have supervised this study are

truly responsible for its fruition. Their exemplification of the finest traits of scholar and educator will long enrich and inspire all who know them.

I am grateful for this opportunity to acknowledge my great debt to each of them:

to Dr. Myron A. Cunningham, Chairman, whose outstanding accomplishments of a lifetime have left him time to extend understanding and inspiration to countless fortunate students;

to Dr. Richard J. Anderson, whose breadth of knowledge and clarity of thinking are exceeded only by his generosity to others;

to Dr. William D. Wolking, whose scholarly dedication to his field and to his students is total; and

to Dr. William R. Reid, Chairman of the Department of Special Education, whose challenging demands and setting of high standards have contributed so much to the growth and excellence of the department.

My sincere appreciation is also due to:

other members of the faculty, staff, and student body of the special education department;

my friends of all ages in the schools of Marion County, Florida; and

my understanding and encouraging family and friends of years past and present.

















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ................
LIST OF TABLES ...... ................
ABSTRACT ....... ...................


CHAPTER I CHAPTER II CHAPTER III CHAPTER IV CHAPTER V


THE PROBLEM ......... ......................
Purpose .......... ......................
Rationale ......... .....................
Definitions of Giftedness ..... ..............
Limitations ........ .....................
Hypotheses to be Tested ...... ..............
Summary .......... .....................

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... ................
The Slosson Intelligence Test .... ............
The Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children . . .
The Progressive Matrices ...... ..............
Models of Intelligence ...... ................

PROCEDURES .......... ......................
Population and Sample ...... ................
Method and Procedures ..... ......... .....
Summary .......... ......................

RESULTS ......... ........................
Summary of Data ........ ..................
Testing of Null Hypotheses .... ...............

IMPLICATIONS ......... ......................


APPENDIX A MODIFIED NORMS FOR STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES,
1956 .......... ........................
APPENDIX B TABLE FOR CONVERSION TO T-SCORES (McCALL) .... APPENDIX C SCALE FOR RATING THE CHILD AS A LEARNER ....... APPENDIX D RAW DATA ......... .....................
REFERENCES ............ ..........................
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......... ......................

















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION, t-TEST VALUES, MEANS,
AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES,
THE SLOSSON INTELLIGENCE TEST, AND THE WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN OR THE WECHSLER
INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN, REVISED WITH MARION
COUNTY POTENTIALLY GIFTED SUBJECTS .... ............. 20

2 COMPARISON OF THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES AND SLOSSON
INTELLIGENCE TEST AS SCREENING INSTRUMENTS FOR
SELECTING GIFTED STUDENTS ...... ................. 22

3 CROSS-STUDY COMPARISONS OF COEFFICIENTS OF
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES
AND WECHSLER TESTS ......... ..................... 24
















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES, 1956
AS A SCREENING INSTRUMENT FOR IDENTIFYING
INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS By

Genevieve D. Webber

August, 1975

Chairman: Myron A. Cunningham
Major Department: Special Education

The Progressive Matrices, 1956 (PM) was evaluated as an assessment instrument for use in the screening procedure of public school students who had been nominated for a program in gifted child education. The subjects were 229 boys and girls enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade in the schools of Marion County, Florida. Subjects' scores on the PM were correlated with their scores on the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT), used as a screening instrument, and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R), used as a placement instrument. Product moment correlations between PM score means and WISC or WISC-R verbal, performance, and full scale score means were low but positively significant at the .01 level. Correlations between PM score means and seven score means of the WISC or WISC-R subtests were also significant. The correlation between the PM score mean and the SIT score mean did not reach significance.

Scores on the PM, SIT, and WISC or WISC-R were also tallied, to

determine how much, if any, PM scores would add to the predictive value
vi











of SIT scores, when used to screen students being referred for the gifted program, with the WISC or WISC-R to be used as the final evaluative instrument. Using a SIT cut-off score of 130 resulted in 90.6% effectiveness and 47.3% efficiency, and using either a 98% cut-off score on the PM (on newly developed Modified Norms) or the SIT cut-off score of 130 increased the effectiveness of the screening procedure to 97.2% effectiveness and the efficiency to 48.1%.


CEha-irman














CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM


Purpose


This study was designed to provide an evaluation of data obtained by administering J. C. Raven's (Standard) Progressive Matrices, 1956 (Raven, 1960) to public school students nominated for a gifted child education program. The relationship of these data to information available from using the Slosson Intelligence Test (Slosson, 1964) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1949) or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (Wechsler, 1974) was explored. These tests are routinely referred to as PM, SIT, WISC, and WISC-R respectively.


Rationale


Exceptional education for students of especially high abilities has developed because of the realization that these children are frequently neglected, and that they need to be helped to develop their potential to become the innovators and leaders needed in any society (Gowan and Torrance, 1971). This need to identify such gifted and/or talented pupils has made defining and measuring their abilities a problem of primary concern.

Examiners need to develop the most effective and efficient means,

measures, and techniques for pinpointing the characteristics regarded as most irrortant for this group, as well as for any other group of students. In tlhs interests of both social and financial economy, screening procedures for any group must have a high predictive relationship to the final placement measure.











Components of the Progressive Matrices, 1956 (PM) were investigated

by using this test with children referred for a program in gifted education. Students' scores on the PM were correlated with their scores on the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT), as a screening instrument, and either the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R), as a placement instrument.

The criterion for placement in the program for intellectually gifted pupils in Marion County was either a verbal, performance, or full scale score at least two standard deviations above the mean on the WISC or WISCR. As a practical concern, the screening procedure needed both high effectiveness and high efficiency (Pegnato and Birch, 1959) in identifying gifted students. This meant finding a high percentage of the gifted without also screening in too high a percentage of pupils who would fail to perform up to criterion on the final placement instrument. By definition, effectiveness is the percent of gifted children a procedure locates, and efficiency is the percent of the gifted in the number selected by the screening procedure (Gowan and Torrance, 1971; Pegnato and Birch, 1959). In addition, instruments were needed for measuring high ability in pupils who were verbally handicapped.

Although both the SIT and the Wechsler tests have been widely used in the evaluation of intellectual ability, the upper range correlations between the two tests have been much lower than with average ability subjects (Estes, Curtin, DeBurger, and Denny, 1961; Machen, 1972). Because the Wechsler tests consist of verbal and performance tasks, while the SIT emphasizes language skills, a more effective and efficient screening procedure may result from using a nonverbal measure in addition to the









SIT. Because one outstanding factor gifted children have in common is an ability to handle abstract concepts (Gallagher, 1974; Hildreth, 1966; Terman, 192]), the use of abstract concepts presented in symbolic terms is considered essential in identifying students of superior aptitudes. For these reasons, and because the PM has been repcrtod to have a high g, or general ability, loading (Burke, 1958; 'Yirke and Bingham, 1969; Irvine, 1963; Vernon, 1965a, 1965b), and a low correlation with socioeconomic status (MacArthur and Elley, 1963; Higgins and Sivers, 1958), and because it is nonverbal and little affected by the previous verbal learning experience of the testee (MacArthur and Elley, 1963), the PM seemed a logical choice to provide these additional data.

The importance of the question of how much subjects' scores on the

PM will improve Slosson scores' prediction of success on the Wechsler tests results principally from three concerns. First, since parent permission is required for psychological testing, and both parents and children are interested in the reason for testing, adverse psychological and social effects frequently result from too high a rejection rate of those tested on the WISC or WISC-R. Second, the expense of administering a WISC or WISC-R dictates a need for high efficiency in identifying in the screening procedure the children and adolescents who may meet the final criterion. Third, it is vital to find those students who are not highly verbally oriented. These potentially gifted pupils are frequently also the ones who are gifted in other areas of the intellect, and include many children who are highly creative (Gallagher, 1975; Gowan, 1972) as well as many from culturally different backgrounds (Torrance, 1964, 1973).


Definitions of Giftedness


Giftedness is basically an exceptionally high degree of one or more










of the many kinds of intelligence. The definition of giftedness has changed with successive concepts of intelligence. The three most frequently recurring themes in defining intelligence have included the capacity to learn, the totality of knowledge acquired, and the ability to adjust or adapt to the total environment (Robinson and Robinson, 1965).

These concepts have been extended in various ways. Terman (1921) felt that simply the ability to carry on abstract thinking constituted intelligence, thus making giftedness an especially high ability in abstract thinking. Gowan's inclusive definition called a gifted child "one whose rate of development on any significant variable is significantly greater than that of the generality" (Gowan and Demos, 1965, p. 33).

Wechsler (1941) introduced the concept of intelligence as an encompassing global function, a function of the total personality. He stressed also the importance of intelligence being goal-directed. Jastak (1949) emphasized the importance of potential, or latent, intellectual ability. Stoddard's (1943) definition of intelligence demonstrated its variety of components:

Intelligence is the ability to undertake activities
that are characterized by difficulty, complexity, abstractness, economy, adaptiveness to a goal, social
value, and the emergence of originals, and to maintain
such activities under conditions that demand a concentration of energy and a resistance to emotional
forces. (p. 4)

Pearson (1896) and Burt (1941) in England, and Thurstone (1938) in America led in the development of the statistical tools necessary for further progress in investigating the nature of human abilities. Correlational techniques and factor analysis, for instance, were prerequisite to developing such concepts as the multi-factor theory of Thorndike (1940), Thurstone's (1938) concept of primary










mental abilities, and J. P. Guilford's (1936) structure of intellect model, as well as the British psychologists' hierarchical theories (Burt, 1941; Eysenck, 1953; Vernon, 1950).

The parallel definitions of giftedness have been expanded to include more and more of these facets of intelligence (Sato, 1974). Paul Witty's (1940) classic definition of giftedness as "consistently remarkable performance in any worthwhile type of human endeavor" (p. 516) includes not only intellectual ability, but also talent in music, art, dance, creative writing, mechancial skills and/or social leadership (Witty, 1967).

The comprehensive definition established by the Commissioner of Education of the United States Office of Education draws from the accumulated theories of previous research, and states that:

Gifted and talented children are those identified
by professionally qualified persons, who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated
educational programs and/or services beyond those
normally provided by the regular school program in
order to realize their contribution to self and
society.
Children capable of high performance include
those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential in any of the following areas, singly or in combination: general intellectual ability, specific academic
aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership
ability, visual and performing arts, psychomotor
ability. It can be assumed . . . these will comprise
3-5% of the school population. (Marland, 1972, p. 10)


Limitations


The following factors limit the extent to which the results of this study can be generalized to other gifted and talented populations:

1. It includes only intellectually gifted referrals.

2. It includes only those students nominated by teachers and


selected in each school for referral.










3. It uses a sample which was not randomly selected.

4. It is limited to one Florida county with a school population of

approximately 22,000 children and adolescents.


Hypotheses to be Tested


The general null hypothesis of this study is that, with the defined potentially-gifted sample:

Students' performance on the Progressive Matrices, 1956 will not add significantly to the predictive value of the Slosson
Intelligence Test, when both are used as screening instruments
with pupils referred for a gifted program, with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or the Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children, Revised used as the final evaluative
instrument.

The specific null hypotheses of this study are that, with the defined potentially-gifted sample:

I The correlations of PM scores and/or SIT scores with WISC
or WISC-R scores will not be significantly greater than the
correlation of SIT scores with WISC or WISC-R scores.

II The correlations between PM scores and WISC or WISC-R scores
(verbal, performance, full scale, and subtests) will not differ
significantly from each other.


Summary


The problem being investigated has been identified, the parameters of this study have been defined, and the selected hypotheses have been stated. The concepts of intelligence and giftedness have been explored, and the procedures to be used in this study in identifying intellectual giftedness have been described.

Chapter II presents background information on the Slosson Intelligence Test, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and its recent revision, and Raven's Progressive Matrices, reviews relevant literature,






7


and discusses models of intelligence. Chapter III describes the procedures used'in selecting the subjects and obtaining the test data and explains the steps and procedures of handling and analyzing the data.

Chapter IV presents the results of the analysis of the data. These findings are related to the postulated hypotheses. Chapter V summarizes the study and discusses general implications.















CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


The survey of literature includes general information and related research using the evaluation instruments employed in this study, the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R), and Raven's Progressive Matrices (PM). Correlation studies, especially in their use with high ability subjects, are of particular importance. In addition, relevant models of intelligence are examined.


The Slosson Intelligence Test


The Slosson Intelligence Test (Slosson, 1963) is an individual test, and was adapted from and validated against the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Form L-M. The SIT uses a ratio intelligence score, so its means

and standard deviations are not the same for all age groups (Garrett, 1965). Also, its means are especially unstable at the upper end of the age scale (Garrett, 1965).

Critics of the SIT point out its heavy emphasis on language skills,

which makes it a difficult test for children with language problems, either cultural or otherwise. Further criticisms stem from the lack of

either a good description of the standardization sample used to establish norms or satisfactory validity studies (Himelstein, 1972). However, the reported correlations of from .54 to .93 between the SIT and the WISC and from .76 to .90 between the SIT and the Stanford-Binet (Himelstein, 1972)









have been significantly high and the SIT has been widely used as a quick intellectual screening instrument.

In the only available correlation study between the SIT and the WISC using a gifted population, Machen (1972) found significant mean differences between SIT scores and all three principal WISC scores, with the mean SIT score averaging at least 15 points higher than the WISC

scores.


The Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children


The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1949) was

developed by David Wechsler from his Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scales, which he had used with both children and adults. In 1974, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised was published with "a more accurate standardization sample, up-dated norms, and many item changes [to make it] an even more valuable tool than the WISC" (Krichev, 1975, p. 128). WISC and WISC-R scores have been treated, in this study, as interchangeable.

The WISC and WISC-R are administered to children from age 5 years to 15 years, 11 months, and from age 6 years to 16 years, 11 months, respectively. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and the Wechsler Pre-School and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) extend Wechsler testing up through adulthood and down to preschool age.

The deviation scores of the Wechsler instruments avoid much of the variability of the ratio scores. A score of 130 marks both the point which is two standard deviations above the mean and the lower limit of the top 2% of the population tested. This is a frequently used cut-off score for placement in gifted education programs. The 12 tests are divided into









verbal and performance sections, each also yielding a deviation score. The separate verbal and performance scores, together with the eight to 12 subtest scores, provide additional data for identifying an individual's strengths and weaknesses more specifically (Sattler, 1974).

Harold Seashore (1951) found that the WISC scores of about one third of a random group of children varied more than 12 points between their verbal and performance intelligence quotients. Frierson (1968) found that a sample of gifted children also included approximately one third whose verbal and performance intelligence scores varied widely, but up to 30 points or more.

Gallagher and Lucito (1961) found that gifted children scored higher on the WISC subtests having a verbal comprehension factor, the information, similarities, comprehension, and vocabulary subtests; and also the block design and object assembly; and scores were lower on picture completion, picture arrangement, and digit span. Gifted and retarded subjects' profiles of scores were found to present reversed patterns, or mirror images of each other (Lucito, 1965). Thompson and Finley's (1962) results with a larger sample in general confirmed the findings of Gallagher and Lucito.


The Progressive Matrices


J. C. Raven (1965) described his matrices as a test of nonverbal

intellectual ability, rather than of general intelligence, and recommended that it be used with a vocabulary test in order to supplement its measure of capacity with a measure of acquired information. The PM was designed to cover intellectual development from infancy to maturity, to measure intellectual capacity independently of verbal ability or manual dexterity, and to be equally useful with persons of all ages and levels of ability









(Foulds and Raven, 1950). Research findings from all of the Progressive Matrices' three similar versions, the Coloured Progressive Matrices, the (Standard) Progressive Matrices, and the Advanced Progressive Matrices, have been included in this review.

The Progressive Matrices (PM) is a cognitive test of nonverbal

problem-solving ability, one which reduces the influence of both schooling and motor handicaps to a minimum (Martin and Wiechers, 1954). Although PM is a nonlanguage test, it requires a high level of insight and reasoning ability, and appears to sample a broad aspect of ability common to a wide variety of intelligence and achievement tests (Elley and MacArthur, 1962). Two basic mental processes underlie solving the matrices; first seeing relationships and then recognizing correlates (Elley and MacArthur, 1962; Jordan and Bennett, 1957).

Two additional tests were developed from the basic PM, 1938 and

were published in 1947. The Coloured Progressive Matrices Test (CPM) was designed for use with children from 3 to 11 years of age (Burke, 1958; Raven, 1965), as well as with individuals suspected of being mentally defective (Burke, 1958). A formboard version of the CPM (Raven, 1965) was developed but is not commercially available. The Advanced Progressive Matrices Test (Raven, 1973) was developed for persons over 11 years of age of average or more than average intellectual ability.

For normal subjects aged 6 or 8 years and over, the (Standard)

Progressive Matrices, Sets A through E, printed in black and white, is used (Burke, 1958; Raven, 1941, 1960). In 1956 the basic 1938 version was revised slightly, as a result of various item analyses. This 1956 revision of the Progressive Matrices, 1938 has been selected for this research as the form best matched to the ability levels of potentially gifted pupils enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade.









in each version of the PM, the first problem is intended to be selfevident, and the problems are arranged so that success on the easy ones at the beginning helps to train each individual how to solve the succeeding problems (Burke, 1958). Since this progressive increase in difficulty makes it a tester of what it teaches, and because it appears to be little affected by the previous experience of each testee, PM has a high face validity (MacArthur and Elley, 1963).

In his research, J. S. Carlson (1973) found that the PM assesses

an individual's ability in simple pattern completion, concrete reasoning by spatial analogy, and abstract reasoning by analogy. The themes of the five sets of matrix problems extend from continuous patterns in Set A through analogies between pairs of figures, progressive alterations of patterns, and permutations of figures, to resolution of figures into constituent parts in Set E (Burke, 1958).

Helpful diagnostic information is available through an analysis of

the kinds of avoidable errors made (Raven, 1960). Avoidable errors are defined as those below the score on each set which would normally be expected for an individual's total score (Raven, 1960). Such inconsistent errors in Sets A and B especially point to faulty perception, particularly in figure-field or gestalt areas (Rimoldi, 1948). Avoidable errors in Sets C or D indicate weaknesses in more complex analytic or integrative operations (Carlson, 1973), while unexpected errors in Set E point most directly to limitations in analytical or algebraic processes (Rimoidi, 1948). Handicaps of either motor coordination or of verbal ability are also evident (Green and Ewert, 1955).

Although Raven's original Scottish standardization samples seem










minimal, his norms have been consistently corroborated by other researchers (Elley and MacArthur, 1962; Sperrazzo and Wilkins, 1958; Tuddenham, Davis, Davison, and Schindler, 1958). Elley and MacArthur (1962) in Canada and Rimoldi (1948) in Argentina obtained norms similar to Raven's. Sperrazzo and Wilkins (1958) found their results had high correlations with Raven's norms, in spite of some indication that the ceiling of the CPM may be too low for a population of average American children aged 7 to 11 years. As a partial exception, Green and Ewert (1955) found that norms for their 6-to-12-year old subjects in the Rochester, Minnesota, area averaged three points higher than Raven's. The PM has been a useful research tool, especially in the study of the growth and deterioration of mental efficiency, and it shows intercorrelations with other tests of mental ability as high, in general, as they show with one another (Burke, 1958).

Only a few Wechsler-PM correlation studies have been done, and most have dealt with either older, subnormal, or pathological populations. In those done with so-called normal children, Martin and Wiechers (1954) administered the CPM to 100 9-year old children, with correlations of .84, .83, and .91 for PM-WISC verbal, performance, and full-scale comparisons respectively. Barratt (1956) used the (Standard) PM, 1938 with 70 fourth-grade subjects and obtained PM-WISC correlations of .69, .70, and .75 respectively. F. Birkemeyer (1965), in a study of pairs of Spanish or Negro and Anglo pupils, matched by sex, age, and full scale WISC scores, found a low positive PM-WISC relationship for the verbal section (.40 for Spanish and Negro, .22 for Anglo).but a high relationship for the performance section (.74 for Spanish and Negro, .70 for Anglo). Using the PM, 1938 and the Coloured PM with 72 laboratory school subjects of above average intelligence, Estes et al. (1961) found much










lower PM-WISC correlations (.55, .91, and .75) than Martin and Wiechers' results.

As in much other research with the PM, the lack of agreement in

results seems to indicate a need for much more broadly conceived research into the usefulness of the PM as an evaluative and diagnostic tool in American schools. It has often shown promising results.


Models of Intelligence


The combination of experimental psychology and its analytical capabilities with educational testing made possible the broad theoretical constructs which have attempted to organize the whole range of human abilities into one system. L. L. Thurstone (1938) led the way in America by utilizing the resources of factor analysis in trying to identify the factors most involved in successful human activity. He found no such global concept as Spearman's g (1927), or general ability. Instead, he found groups of specific abilities, and called these factors primary mental abilities. His factors, which were well supported by later researchers, included verbal comprehension, word fluency, numerical ability, spatial relations, associative memory, perceptual speed, and inductive reasoning. This model has provided the basis for many widely used tests.

J. P. Guilford (1956) has continued and refined Thurstone's work.

His theoretical 120-cell structure of intellect attempts to classify and then interrelate all intelligent human behavior, by considering it from three points of view. He analyzes the major kinds of intellectual activities or processes, the broad classes or types of information handled, and the forms in which information is processed. His kinds of activities include figural as visual or kinesthetic only; figural with accompanying










meaning, or symbolic; words and ideas; and social, or behavioral. His model has been related by Mary Meeker (1969) to various intelligence measuring instruments in order to derive added diagnostic information from such tests.

E. L. Thorndike (1940), as the culmination of over fifty years'

research in learning, theorized three principal kinds of intelligence. He called these abstract, or the ability to handle ideas; mechanical, or the ability to understand things; and social, or the ability to understand persons. His accompanying list of particular abilities is broadly and practically conceived. He includes the following areas: leadership, the ability to cooperate, energy, persistence, the ability to control oneself, the ability to control others, persuasiveness, popularity, political ability, the ability to fulfill a vocational role, the ability to fulfill roles as an adult and citizen, and the ability to adapt to reality (Thorndike, 1940, pp. 57-58).

The usefulness of such models of intelligence as these lies not only in their pointing the way to further research, but also in their diagnostic values in helping individuals to plan optimum programs of learning.















CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES


Population and SaLMle


The population consisted of all potentially gifted students in the elementary and middle public schools in Marion County, Florida, as identified by procedures established by the Marion County School Board. The sample consisted of all pupils nominated for the gifted education program who had been given the Progressive Matrices, 1956 (PM), the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT), and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) or Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R) during the period between September 1, 1973 and June 30, 1975.


Method and Procedures


Nominations and teacher-rating scales (Appendix C) used with

potentially gifted students were solicited from all Marion County public school personnel who had contacts with possible candidates for the gifted program. The PM was given to more than the 229 subjects comprising the final sample. It was administered in small groups and untimed. All testing was conducted by the author, with the exception of two subjects who were tested by a guidance counselor's aide, and 15 who were tested by the other Marion County teacher of the gifted. All PM test protocols were scored by

the author. The SIT was administered by each school's guidance counselor, to all promising nominees. Local guidance committees in each school then reviewed the available data and decided whether or not a formal referral should be









made for further psychological testing. Since the SIT was the official referring instrument, the PM scores received widely varying emphases in these decisions. If a referral was made, a county school psychologist decided, on the basis of all data submitted, whether or not to administer either the WISC or WISC-R. If the Wechsler test was given, that student became a subject in this study and the correlations among his PM, SIT, and WISC or WISC-R scores were analyzed. In August, 1974 the Marion County school psychologists officially replaced the WISC with its newly available revision, the WISC-R.

Raven's (1960) PM guide provides percentile norms for ages 8 years through 14 years only, and these norms are given for only seven percentiles (5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 90, and 95). Therefore, these norms had to be extrapolated and interpolated to provide the differentiation especially needed at the upper end of the ability scale. Sources used in modifying and extending Raven's norms included Raven's (1941) description of his standardization procedures, his Guide to Using the Coloured Progressive Matrices (1965), Sperrazzo and Wilkin's (1958) research in St. Louis, Green and Ewert's (1955) research studies with the CPM in Rochester, Minnesota, and Orme's (1961, 1966, 1968) normative studies. These Modified Norms (Appendix A) have been used throughout this research.

Because the scores of the PM, SIT, and WISC or WISC-R are not

directly comparable, the percentile scores of the PM, the ratio test scores of the SIT, and the deviation test scores of the WISC or WISC-R were converted to standard McCall T-scores (Ross and Stanley, 1954), with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A table for converting all scores into T-scores was developed (Appendix B) and all test score data were handled in T-score form. This was done for simpler statistical









treatment to some degree, but the more obvious advantage was the ready and direct equivalence of interpretation.

Test score data included the PM and SIT scores and the verbal, performance, and full scale scores and the scores of the subtests of the WISC or WISC-R tests. Means and standard deviations on scores from all tests were calculated. The standard scores for the three tests were compared by analysis of variance, and Pearson product moment coefficients of correlation were computed. In addition, scores were tallied from the raw data to compare the relative effectiveness and efficiency (Pegnato and Birch, 1959) of the PM and SIT as screening instruments.


Summary


The subjects in this study were pupils who had been referred as potentially gifted by teachers and other school personnel in Marion County, Florida. The subjects were enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade and were from 5 to 14 years old when the PM was administered.

The tests given were the Slosson Intelligence Test, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised, and the Progressive Matrices, 1956. The SIT was administered individually by school counselors, the WISC or WISC-R individually by county school psychometrists or psychologists, and the PM in small groups by a Marion County teacher of the gifted.
















CHAPTER IV

RESULTS


Summary of Data


Test scores on the Progressive Matrices, 1956 for 229 high ability students from kindergarten through eighth grade were compared with their scores on the Slosson Intelligence Test and either the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised. All scores were transformed into T-score form and tabulated (Appendix D), and an analysis of variance and a correlation matrix were generated.

All calculations were performed by the Northeast Regional Data Center IBM 370/165 of the University System of the State of Florida. The language used was the Statistical Analysis System (Barr and Goodnight, 1972). The procedures used were analysis of variance, correlation matrix, sortand list. t-Test values for PM-WISC or-WISC-R score correlations were computed. The .05 and .01 levels of confidence were selected as suitable indicators of statistical significance.

The coefficients of correlation among PM, SIT, and WISC or WISC-R verbal, performance, and full scale scores are the first items shown in the first and second columns of Table 1. The correlations between PM and WISC or WISC-R indicate the high general strength of the PM in predicting future success on both sections of the Wechsler instruments. Although these correlations are of a different order from those resulting from















TABLE 1

COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION, t-TEST VALUES, MEANS, AND
STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES, THE
SLOSSON INTELLIGENCE TEST, AND THE WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE
FOR CHILDREN OR THE WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN, REVISED
WITH MARION COUNTY POTENTIALLY GIFTED SUBJECTS



SIT PM P14 MEAN s.d. N = 229 ra r t (McCall T-scoresb)


SIT .126 8.69** 76.64 6.22 PM .126 69.71 11.13 WISC or WISC-R
Verbal .463** .226** 2.55* 67.65 8.16 Performance .197** .219** 9.84** 61.77 7.95 Full Scale .429** .292** 6.50** 64.92 6.55 Information .332** .142* 0.05 69.76 11.16 CoMpRehension .220** .1~ 4.51* 64.89 13.29 Arithmetic .256** .115 3.21** 66.42 11.80 Similarities .239** .152* 0.38 69.34 11.04 VobUnary .402** .221.** 2.14* 67.73 11.08 Digit Span .090 .088 7.75** 60.96 12.60 Picture Completion .182** .225** 8.79** 61.16 12.38 Picture Arrangement .036 .059 7.95** 61.19 12.39 Block Design .163* .276** 6.45** 63.61 12.51 Object Assembly .065 .261** 9.85** 60.55 11.89 Coding .054 .113 7.11** 61.24 15.19 Mazes - data not included due to small N

*Significant at .05 level **Significant at .01 level
apearson product moment coefficient of correlation
bMcCall T-score - Standard score with mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10










comparisons of subjects covering a wider intelligence range, they are significant at the .01 level.

Nondirectional t-test values, shown at the top of the third column of Table 1, were calculated, comparing PM means with all of the other variables listed in Table 1. These t-test values demonstrate that even with this highly restricted population the PM scores differ in level from the other scores.

All of these four t-test values are greater than the critical

difference, 1.96 at the .05 level of significance. All except one show greater than the .01 level of significance, 2.58. This indicates that these tests are not identical in the way they measure the abilities of students.

As shown in the second column of Table 1, not only the verbal, performance, and full scale scores, but four subtest scores of the WISC or WISC-R, three performance and one verbal, also correlate very highly with PM scores. In addition, three additional verbal subtest scores correlate significantly, at the .05 level. The low correlation, .126, of PM scores with SIT scores provides further evidence that the PM is measuring different facets of intelligence from those reflected in a SIT score.

Table 2 shows the comparative effectiveness and efficiency (terms as defined in Chapter I and as explained in Table 2), for several possible cut-off scores, of the PM and the SIT in screening nominees for a gifted program. For this further comparison, two screening procedures were assumed, both including teacher recommendations and rating scales, with one also including the SIT and the other including both the SIT and the PM. Comparing the percentage of subjects, in each of the two screening procedures, who reached the required criterion, a verbal, performance,












TABLE 2

COMPARISON OF THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES AND SLOSSON INTELLIGENCE TEST
AS SCREENING INSTRUMENTS FOR SELECTING GIFTED STUDENTS

Required criterion for admission to the gifted program: Verbal, Performance, or Full Scale score at least two standard deviations above the mean on the WISC or WISC-R.
N = 229 Potentially gifted subjects
N = 106 Subjects reaching required criterion for gifted program



Screening Number Number Instru- Selected of ment(s) Cut-off by Gifted Effective- EfficiUsed Score Screening Selected nessa encyb


PM 95 124 69 .651 .556 PM 98 102 56 .528 .549 PM 98.6 94 50 .472 .532 PM 99.5 71 42 .396 .592

SIT 130 203 96 .906 .473 SIT 135 170 87 .821 .512 SIT 140 134 76 .717 .567

SIT or 130
PM 98 214 103 .972 .481 SIT or 135
PM 95 207 102 .962 .493 SIT or 135
PM 98.6 200 98 .925 .490 SIT or 140
PM 98 170 91 .858 .535

SIT and 130
PM 98 91 50 .472 .549 SIT and 140
PM 98 66 43 .406 .652

apercent of Gifted Selected: Number of actual gifted who were
selected as gifted by screening procedure, divided by total number of actual gifted.
bpercent of Gifted Selected by Screening: Number of actual gifted who were selected as gifted by screening procedure, divided by total number selected as gifted by screening procedure.










or full scale score at least two standard deviations above the mean on the placement instrument, shows in Table 2 that adding the PM to the SIT in the screening procedure increased both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the screening procedure. With a cut-off score of 130 on the SIT or of 98 on the PM effectiveness was increased from 90.6% to 97.2%, while efficiency was increased from 47.3% to 48.1%.

Since both high effectiveness and moderate efficiency are necessary (Pegnato and Birch, 1959; Gowan and Torrance, 1971), the effectiveness and efficiency of a screening procedure can be balanced at the level dictated by economical and psychological considerations by adjusting the cut-off point on each screening instrument. The examples shown of possible combinations tend to indicate using a SIT cut-off score slightly higher than 130 with a PM cut-off score possibly lower than 98 (on Modified Norms, Appendix A).

Of the 106 students achieving the specified criterion on the placement instrument, 83 reached criterion on their WISC verbal scores, 46 on their performance scores, and 55 on their full scale scores. Varying WISC or WISC-R criterion requirements would modify the recommendations of this study.

As Table 3. shows, the correlations between PM scores and Wechsler verbal scores and between PM scores and Wechsler performance scores for this research sample are almost the same, with the verbal the higher of the two. An examination of both verbal and performance subtest content and score correlations helps to explain how a nonverbal test can also be a predictor of success in verbal tasks. The PM-Wechsler verbal subtest correlations show a highly significant relationship between PM and vocabulary at the .01 level, and correlations with the PM reach significance on the subtests comprehension, information, and similarities at the .05 level.









TABLE 3


CROSS-STUDY COMPARISONS OF COEFFICIENTS OF
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES AND WECHSLER TESTS


Marion County
Admitted
Estes Potentially as Martin & et al.a Gifted Gifted Wiechersa Barratt N=72 N=229 N=130 N=l00 N=70 Mean WISC (Full Scale) 123(S-B)b 122.9 127.8 107 108.9 s.d. 12.395 9.950 16.1 18.02


WISC or WISC-R
Verbal .55 .226** .143 .84 .692** Performance .91 .219** .107 .83 .699** Full Scale .75 .292** .181* .91 .754** Information .142* .049 .47 .585** Comprehension .137* .097 .70 .075 Arithmetic .115 .120 .66 .540** Similarities .152* .068 .62 .589** Vocabulary .221** .159 .73 .561** Digit Span .088 .116 - .419** Picture Completion .225** .103 .62 .415** Picture Arrangement .059 .017 .58 .300** Block Design .276** .170 .74 .601** Object Assembly .261** .207* .73 .388** Coding .113 .107 .60 .332** Mazes - - -323**

*Significant at .05 level of confidence **Significant at .01 level of confidence
aSignificance of correlations not indicated in study
bStanford-Binet Intelligence Scale










Many similar learning characteristics contribute to both the perceptual, abstract problem solving of the PM items and to the verbal comprehension area represented by these four subtests. Both vocabulary and similarities measure symbolic functioning and abstract reasoning, while information and comprehension are related to alertness and awareness and practical judgment, but not to abstract reasoning directly.

In Table 3 is shown a comparison of the PM-Wechsler correlations of

this study with those of other studies referred to in Chapter II. Included are studies by Martin and Wiechers (1954) and Barratt (1956) using subjects within the average range of intelligence. Birkemeyer's (1965) two samples have been omitted from Table 3, due to small N's, 28 in each group. In the superior intellectual range are the research sample used by Estes et al. (1961) and both the total sample of potentially gifted subjects used in this study, and the portion of the sample officially admitted to the Marion County program in gifted education. This portion includes several students who scored 130+ on either the verbal or performance section without achieving a full scale score of 130+ on the WISC or WISC-R. It also includes a few subjects with WISC or WISC-R scores slightly below 130 but with exceptionally high achievement indicators.

The sets of correlations for both samples of this study are in basic agreement with previous research. The restricted nature of the samples used in this study, with their combination of high means and low standard deviations, has greatly attenuated the correlations obtained.

In the study by Estes et al. the correlation between the PM score and the Wechsler performance score was much higher than the PM-verbal score correl3tion. Barratt's subjects showed a fractionally higher PMWISC performance correlation. The Martin and Wiechers subjects and the










two Marion County samples all reverse this relationship and show PM-WISC verbal score correlations slightly higher then their PM-WISC performance correlations. This variation in order may be related to a difference in student samples. The subjects for Estes et al. attended a university laboratory school and were selected on the basis of availability of scores for the 1937 Stanford-Binet L and M forms and scores for the WISC full scale, while the selection of subjects for the present study began with teacher referral for suspected giftedness.

Barratt's subjects comprised the entire fourth-grade enrollment of one school, so were a more random sample. Further research with large random samples should help to establish the relationship between intellectual level and difference between PM-WISC verbal and PM-WISC performance correlations more conclusively. The present study shows how it has functioned in one county population.

The low correlation between PM and SITtogether with its high t-test value, as shown in Table 1, further indicates that the nature of the verbal tasks of the Wechsler tests differs noticeably from that of the SIT. Other related information should also be noted. The Barratt and the Martin and Wiechers samples were principally of a more normal intellectual level, both with much larger standard deviations than either of the Marion County samples. The range for the subjects used by Estes et al. was from 84 to 159 on the Stanford-Binet, which indicates a larger standard deviation also. In addition, according to the research of Estes et al., the Stanford-Binet mean score of 123 for their sample was the equivalent of a WISC full scale score of 116,which also makes their subjects less similar to the Marion County subjects.

In addition, none of the other studies used exactly the same version









of the PM, 1938 used in the present research. Both Birkemeyer and Martin and Wiechers used the Coloured PM, Barratt used the (Standard) PM, 1938, and Estes et al. used both the PM, 1938 and the Coloured PM. Some of the older or more able students may have found the Coloured PM too easy. Further research should also fully investigate the appropriateness of PM versions for various ability levels.


Testing of Null Hypotheses


Hypothesis I states that using whichever is higher, the PM or the

SIT score, will not provide a significantly better prediction of WISC or WISC-R scores than the SIT scores alone. As shown in Table 1, the highly significant coefficients of correlation between the PM and Wechsler scores, together with their significant t-test values, provide evidence that PM scores are highly significant predictors of WISC or WISC-R scores.

The relative effectiveness and efficiency of using PM and/or SIT

scores for screening instead of SIT scores by themselves is shown in the comparisons in Table 2. Since effectiveness increased from 90.6% to 97.2%, and efficiency increased from 47.3% to 48.1% when PM scores were also used, Hypothesis I is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

Hypothesis II states that the relationship between PM scores and Wechsler subtest scores, as well as verbal, performance, and full scale scores, will not provide significantly diagnostic differentiation. As shown in Table 1, ten of the 14 correlations between PM and Wechsler scores show significance at the .05 level, with seven of them significant at the .01 level. Furthermore, 12 of the 14 t-test values shown in Table 1 reach significance at the .05 level, with only three of those










failing to show significance also at the .01 level. Hypothesis II is therefore also rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

With the rejection of both specific null hypotheses, the general null hypothesis is automatically rejected also. Thus, the general conclusion of this investigator is that using both the Progressive Matrices and the Slosson Intelligence Test as components of a screening procedure for identifying gifted children is significantly more indicative of the abilities of students than using only the Slosson Intelligence Test as a screening test.

















CHAPTER V

IMPLICATIONS


The nonverbal Progressive Matrices test has been shown to be a highly effective adjunct to the primarily verbal Slosson Intelligence Test in screening nominees for a program in gifted education. A related concern has been to derive from the PM information about each student and his capabilities so that an educational prescription may be formTulated.

Guilford (1956) called the PM a two-dimensional analogy and a perceptual-figural test related to the conceptual tests of verbal analogies and word matrices. Components of the reasoning processes required to score on the PM include gestalt forces, memory, class inclusion and multiplicative classification (Carlson, 1973), analytic and integrating operations (Meili, 1965), inductive reasoning (Rimoldi, 1948), sequencing ability, figure-ground and spatial discrimination, and speed of perception (Fleming, 1967). Many of these components sample the higher order thinking processes, in addition to measuring basic coordination and elementary logical thinking.

In this writer's opinion, the following specific areas within Guilford's model of intelligence, as described by Meeker (1969), are most directly concerned with the PM components identified by the above researchers:

cognition of figural relations; evaluation of figural
units and relations; evaluation of symbolic systems,
transformations, and implications; evaluation of 29










semantic systems, relations, and implications;
convergent production of symbolic relations,
systems, transformations, and implications; and
convergent production of semantic implications
or problem solving. (pp. 33-80)

Significantly high correlations between the PM score and various

WISC or WISC-R subtest scores can be used as further clues to what a PM score indicates. As shown in the second column of Table 1, block design, object assembly, picture completion, vocabulary, similarities, and information rank respectively high. Of these seven subtests, those on which score means, in the fourth column of Table 1, are also high include vocabulary, similarities, and block design. Logically, these high correlations of high scores imply a high probability that subjects who score high on the PM will also score high on the Wechsler subtests vocabulary, similarities, and block design.

This further implies a probability that students scoring high on the PM will also show the same learning characteristics that are reportedly (Sattler, 1974) measured by these three subtests. Vocabulary, for instance, is designed to measure language and learning ability, memory, a general fund of information, and concept formation, and requires abstract reasoning for a high score. A high score on the similarities subtest indicates good verbal concept formation, or abstract thinking, as well as a high level of logical thinking. The block design subtest is designed to be a test of nonverbal abstract reasoning, integrative capacity and insight, visual-motor coordination, and perceptual speed and organization.

The similarity between a list of the characteristics measured by these three subtests and the components of the reasoning processes required to do well on the PM corroborates the basic assumption that PM scores can be used to predict probable success on the Wechsler subtests vocabulary, similarities, and block design, and predict probable success










also in the abilities measured by these subtests.

A student's PM score can be helpful diagnostically through a twoway analysis. A very high PM score and low indicators in verbal, or visual motor, or abstract reasoning areas would indicate a need to look for the reason(s) for the discrepancy. Conversely, very high indicators in one or more of the other areas and an unexpectedly low PM score would also indicate a need to look for a reason for the deficit. As an example, a student scoring very low on the PM and high on the SIT would need to be carefully evaluated in the perceptual area, if the kinds of errors made on the PM were not otherwise explainable.

Analyzing the kinds of errors made in solving the PM problems is the most direct way to begin finding explanations of inconsistent weakness. Analyzing and comparing all other indicators of his various abilities is the next step.

In curricular planning also, all the clues available from the relationships between PM scores and other indicators, as well as from a careful analysis of any errors made on the PM, need to be used in planning individualized programs designed for both logical development of all abilities and for remediation of any weaknesses. Utilizing a broad concept of intelligence, as Meeker (1969) has with Guilford's model, provides helpful parameters within which to derive differential intellectual assessment and .plan educational experiences designed to best develop the abilities of all children, including the gifted segment of the school population. Meeker (1969) has developed also a useful format for communicating assessment information and ensuing recommendations for students' individual school programs. Developing an effective means of sharing and utilizing all information and implications derived from










pupil assessment must be done if a testing program is to serve its real purpose.

The PM has proved itself to be a versatile tool. Its administration can be varied in different ways for many purposes. For instance, immediate feedback can be provided for each response and an opportunity given to discover the correct answer, making the PM instrument even more a measure of a subject's ability to learn. Higher consistency of performance could also be expected from such an approach (Radford, 1966), since impulsivity would be discouraged.

Just as the PM, 1956 should be given to primary age students who do especially well on the CPM, so should the Advanced PM be made available to older subjects scoring high on the PM, 1956, in order to provide more conclusive differentiation at the highest ability levels (Fitz-Gibbon, 1974). Using the PM as a timed test to assess students' speed of accurate intellectual work (Burke, 1958), slide presentations to larger groups (Fleming, 1967), or write-on booklet versions, are other promising variations. All of these and other adaptations need to be explored.

Further investigation of the PM is needed with random groups of subjects, in order to compare gifted with other ability levels and achieve more conclusive results. Correlating socioeconomic status and ability level with score on the PM would be an especially fruitful study, for the PM is generally recognized as a culture-reduced nonverbal test of general ability (Sattler, 1974).

This study has made a beginning in assessing the usefulness of the PM as a diagnostic instrument to be used with potentially gifted elementary and middle school subjects. Results indicate that it contributes often unsuspected information to the screening procedure and to the educational planning process.







































APPENDIX A

MODIFIED NORMS FOR STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES, 1956




34

A PPENDIX A

MODIFIED NORMS FOR STANDARD PROGRE-SSIVE MATRICES, 1956

TOTAL SCORE
Percentile T-Sccre
Points (McCall)...... Age 1 5 , 5,1 6 16 1 71 7:1 E I P'-.1 91 9 1 10t . 0 ' 11i111i 1 12 1 12 13 13,1 14 99.991 90+ 1 2_ 34 136 "138 1 40 1 42 : 4T 4 6 F - 1 s0- 52 54 56 Sr9 715 8 59 6 99 .99 89 1 31 33 1 3 ! 3 7 39 1 41 1 .4 3 1 4 1 . 8 1 50 5 2 54 56 1 6-- 5 E-,~ 5 s 5 --'5 " 99.9.8 33 ' i 3 5 1 37, 1 3' 4 1 I 2 5 71 58 1{ 59 5
999 7 13 2 3 .6 3 41 1 4 4 i471 49 51 54 561 56 5"7 59 8 5E 9 1 9 99.96 96 1 2 3 3 814 21 5 714 51 i54. 5 6 15 57 58 58 9 5
999585 129 31 3 15 7 4 J4 1451471 9 51 1;3 55 t 55 i 56 7 5 56 1 8 .... 37 45 397 i 9 +7 57 58 15 99.94 - 84 -F2 1 3i 2 514 9 5.65 55i :1 5 s-- 5 7 99.93 83 1 28 130 32 1 34 36 1 39 , 42 1 45 i 47, 1 51 53 55 t 5 1 6157 57 58 58
99.9. .. . 62 2 0 2 3 "31-6 18 , 5 sC 53 i E5 15 5 S f 7 57 S 5
9 9 .91 a l 2 1 i9 t -i 35501 5.1 5 5 .1 S 5.5 C- , 5 7 5 7", 8 5
99.980 127 2 -31 33 ,35 1 38, 1 + 41s 1: 4414 1 0 1 53: 5-; f "55 156 1 57 57 1 5 R
99. 7'2 28'1 3'0 1'3 34 1 38 1 41 44 . 4 6 i 48 5F50 i 3 55-5 -- 1 57 5715 5
99.7 7s 26 28 1 30 ... 32 341 iz., .... 43 1 .... . 47 49 .........4 1 54 i 56. 56 1 56 57 57
99.6 77 25 2'7+ 29 ;3 43 45 47 49 52 ! 54 i S 5 56 57 5799.5 6 25 7 2 91 31 331 3 1 4 43 ,45 1.47 tg4 j 52 1 4 1 55 1556 5 56
99.4 75 24 26 81 30 j32 1 3* t 40 4 1 46 9 1 5211 51 4 4 55 55 56 5
99.2 74 24- 26 Z8 !2 i 36 1 4, 42 4 5. , 1 3 254 55 55 56 56
99" 73 23 2 3 27 j 2 1 3T36 14 1 2 44 I '" __46 i.48 1 51 . -I [ 3531 53 !54 1 5 5 4 55 55

9is. "21 22 24, 26- 28 30+ j 35 j 9 4I3i45 7 5 15 53 5454 5 5
97.. 312..7 913 !. 39 j 0 42 44 46 491 51 1 52 .2 52 53 53 4 96 67 ] 0 22 ; 24 1!2- 5 213I 34 1 38 1' 39 i 4...+3 1 45 i 4S 50 15 11S2 5 3 5
66 _T 1 1 2 .7 +34 138 1 39 1 41 43 1 81 5
95iT 215 34 12 50 i5 5 1=
93 65 1- 1 22 i2 2 ,+, 6 i 33 377 , -+ 1 50 SO t4+ 51 52,", 53 Is o s20!2G 3 9 4 44 i46 46 1 S0 1 5C15 1 2 5214 90 63 1 6 '-S- 1 20 122 124. ,i 3 4 .-6 , 8 , 41 1 43.. 5 47 4" 9 149 150 , 50 151 - 52 89 62 1 15 ; 17 1 9 121 23 '130 -1 35 37 - 14 4 2 44 j 61 48 i 48 149 SO 86 61 '2 14 2T T 29 '74 39 41 4 45i 4 S1914 0 5 84 60 14 1 6 012212 2 i ..1 5 38 46 10 4, 142 '1 49 4 -50 15
259 1 15 1 11 2 7 25 1 28 i4 32 494 6 9 4 50 76 579 1 1 1 9 11 1 ! j25 24 12 32 34 37 39 1 41 43 1 45 46 1 47 4 149 1+ 49
73 56 1 4 161" 40 42 4 14 ; 46 47 7 4 7 69 55 2 1 1 17 1 1 2 2 7 2C6 3 2 1 ,35 914 7 4 66 54 "1 1 1 40 "~ !44. 45 46 4- 6..
11 32134j3 3
623 53 1161 1 71 iS 16!12 11 : 2 5 293 13 . 3 13 3 a 36j_3 40 142 i.. 43 45 146 46 69 52 15 -2 - 24 1 210! 235 37 3 - 14 4 1 4 4 54 51 1061 i14i5 7 l901.2 2 26 29 f 114f3 3 e 40 42 ' 44 4 .45 so 50 1 '+1 5 16 IS 1 21 2 4 2S 8 12033 ! 26 F 3 7 2 4 ..... 4 - 43 4 16 44
46 49 9 0 il' t2 1 5 1 20 27 ' -''1 73 19 32f4 , 1.. 2 43 43 48 2 413 a I i 15 1 1 16' , 19 22 0 1 - 182 1 335 37 ' 41t425 4 38 47 " 7''6 r 9 Lf !2.0 i 11-2 4 1 z i-E 1 246 1 26 29 32, , .. 3 4 36 _'3 40 14 1 9 42 31 450 10 1, 4 1414 1 1 1.6 119 , 2 10 2 3 3 2r 32 24 13 8 3 14 27 49 110--'i 1ii ! +15 is +0+2 2 29 32 5 . 2C 3 4 33 2 . - 7 3
21 42 5 8- 6 7i 94llj12 , 1 i -3 15 1 2 11 22 1 25 !2 .2 1 !39 ,1 3 4 2 3 1437
15 41 6 7 9 80 i i 2 ill , 15 1.17 1 23 j "5 21 Z 30 126 29233 t3 -3 36_ 3 1 416 403 5 j 6- 78 i 1 9 fi 12 14 #6 17 t1 2 2 2 373 3
14 39 4 5 1 6 7 i 8i13 Ill14 136 j5 116 1 23. 20 ! '6 129 3 3 0 13 35
123 - 7 1 8; 1 9 i" '1. 14 1_ 20 1:-4 12 2 9 13 3
10 37 2' 3'"5 6 7 1 8 1 , 13 113 !25 J 6 1 222 1325 27 33 -z5 36
a4 36 2 3 ,, 3 12 9 Ill 112 1,: 121-4 1 113 2 l 2 2 6 2
7 +.5 2 3+. 4:, ,5_ ('. t1 7 12 8: 11C Ii ",

6 3 2 6 j 77 9 iii ill 113 1 14 t5 6 17! 9

Int ermediate scores should be placed in square irvediately above.







































APPENDIX B

TABLE FOR CONVERSION TO T-SCORES (McCALL)





APPENDIX B

TABLE FOR CO'?i-;TSION TO Tx-SCRFS (McCALL)

WISC WISC WISC T- wiSC SIT PHM V P FS SCORE SUJBTEST
9D+ ].9+ 167-168+ S9.591 89 165-366 99.99 150+ 155-156+ 155+ 88 163-164 99.98 148-14? 153-154 154 87 261-162 99.97 14 6-14 7 -15F1-152 153 E 6 is 159-160 99.96
145 1S0 152 85 157-15S 99.95 144 149 151 84 155-156 99.94 143 148 150 83 15.;-154 99.93 141-142 146-147 14P-149 82 17 -1-51 -15 2 99.92
140 !.15 146-147 81 149-150 99.91 139 143-144 145 so 147-148 99.9 138 142 143-14-1 79 145-146 99.8 137 141 142 78 16 143-144 99.7 135-136 139-140 140-241 77 141-142 99.6
134 138 139 76 139-140 ?9.5 132-133 136-137 137-138 75 138 99.4
131 i35 1i16 74 is 137 99.2
130 :33-134 134-135 73 136 99 129-129 132 133 72 135 98.6
127 131 . l', 71 133 98.2
126 129-330 130-13i 70 122 98 125 12@ 12E!-129 69 14 130-131 97
124 127 127 Ea 129 96.4 12---123 125-126 125-1!26 6 7 128 ?s
121 124 124 66 126-127 S5 120 122-123 123 65 124-125 93 119 121 122 64 1+3 122-123 92 118 120 120-121 63 121 90 116-117 118-119 119 62 119-120 69
115 117 118 61 117-118 as 114 115-1,16 116-117 60 116 84 113 114 115 59 12 114-115 82 112 113 113-114 58 112-113 79 ii0-ili 3.11-112 11!2 57 Ii 76
109 110 I!10-111 56 109-110 73 107-108 108.-i09 108-109 55 108 69
106 1071 107 54 1i 106-107 66 104-105 ]05-iC6 105-10+6 52 104-105 62 102-103 103-104 103-104 El 102-103 58
I01 101-102 101-102 --1 101 54 100 103 i0o 50 10 100 so 98-99 9Q -99 9E-99 A 9 96-99 46
97 96-97 96-97 4 96-97 42.... 95-96 94-95 94-95 47 94-95 38
94 93 93 46 93 35 93 92 92 45 9 91-92 31 92 91 90-91 44 90 27 90-91 e9-90 688? 42 89 24 88-89 87-ES 86-87 42 66-87 21
87 6-3 85 41 85 is 86 85 84 40 a 63-84 16 85 84 83 39 82 14 84 S2-83 E2 38 E0-8! 12 82-63 S0-3I 81 37 78-79 I0
al 79 79-80 36 77 a
so 78 78 35 7 76 7
79 77 76-77 34 74-75 6,







































APPENDIX C

SCALE FOR RATING THE CHILD AS A LEARNER















APPENDIX C

SCALE FOR RATING THE CHILD AS A LEARNER (adapted from Renzulli & Hartman, 1971)


Name Date School Grade Age

Years Months

Teacher or person completing this form

How long have you known this child?

Please read each statement carefully and place an X in the appropriate place according to the following scale. (Also, underline the segments of any items which are especially applicable).

1. If you have seldom or never observed this characteristic
2. If you have observed this characteristic occasionally
3. If you have observed this characteristic to a considerable
degree
4. If you have observed this characteristic almost all of the
time.

Please use the back of this sheet for any comments.

1 2 3 4

1. Has unusually advanced vocabulary for age or grade level;
uses terms in a meaningful way; has verbal behavior
characterized by "richness" of expression, elaboration,
and fluency.

- 2. Has rapid insight into cause-effect relationships; tries
to discover the how and why of things; asks many provocative questions (as distinct from informational or factual
questions); wants to know what makes things (or people)
"tick."

_ 3. Is a keen and alert observer; usually "sees more" or
"gets more" out of a story, film, etc., than others.

4. Becomes absorbed and truly involved in certain topics or
problems; is persistent in seeking task completion. (It
is sometimes difficult to get him to move on to another
topic.)










5. Prefers to work independently; requires little direction
from teachers.

6. Often is self assertive (sometimes even aggressive);
stubborn in his beliefs.

7. Displays a great deal of curiosity about many things; is
constantly asking questions about anything and everything.

8. Is uninhibited in expressions of opinion; is sometimes
radical and spirited in disagreement; is tenacious.

9. Criticizes constructively; is unwilling to accept
authoritarian pronouncements without critical examination. 10. Seems to be well liked by his classmates. 11. Can express himself well, has good verbal facility and is
usually well understood.

12. Tends to dominate others when they are around; generally
directs the activity in which he is involved.








































APPENDIX D

RAW DATA














APPENDIX D

RAW DATA
(Excluding WISC Subtest Scores
and PM Set Scores)


Sub- Age-Yr. PM SIT WISC-V WISC-P WISC-FS jects Sex Grade & Mo. T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score


8-9 9-10 9-3 10-2 7-4 9-5 9-4 10-2 7-7 7-3 6-7 7-3 6-9 10-2 8-2 9-10 9-7 7-11 8-3 10-5 6-5 7-8 7-10 9-6 9-4 10-2 13-4 7-6 10-0 9-6 5-8 12-5 8-1 8-11 8-2 10-2 7-1 7-8 9-3


78 77 76 85
77 75 73 78 72 81 73 80
69 68 81 89 90 77 68 79 73 84 70 70
71 79 77 84 73 75 76 80
84 75 76 78 78 65 82


56 72 60 71 61 72 51 61 48 71 65 76 70 56 57 65 65 59 70 51 64 49 54 61 54 57 67 62 64 62 52 59 75 70
66 66 56 51 72








RAW DATA - Continued


Sub- Age-Yr. PM SIT WISC-V WISC-P WISC-FS jects Sex Grade & Mo. T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score

40 M 3 8-0 63 80 73 61 67 41 F 5 10-5 78 78 66 75 71 42 F 4 9-0 58 75 67 51 58 43 M 4 9-1 59 84 62 52 57 44 M 2 7-8 74 87 69 71 71 45 F 5 10-3 64 72 70 70 70 46 F 2 7-6 58 71 56 61 58 47 F K 6-2 63 76 68 52 59 48 F 4 9-10 72 79 73 70 72 49 M 4 9-2 87 76 67 68 68 50 M 3 8-5 90 80 73 61 67 51 M 5 10-0 67 70 80 57 69 52 M 4 9-5 72 71 66 62 64 53 M 2 7-5 79 70 56 46 51 54 M 7 11-9 61 89 90 69 83 55 F 4 9-6 60 85 62 61 61 56 F 4 9-9 90 77 67 53 60 57 M 1 6-6 47 71 69 47 57 58 M 4 9-6 82 84 63 58 60 59 F 2 7-11 90 84 77 57 68 60 F 3 8-6 84 81 65 69 67 61 M 1 6-3 87 90 77 82 80 62 M 3 8-10 81 74 75 69 72 63 M 8 13-7 70 77 61 55 58 64 M 2 7-4 74 83 81 75 78 65 F 1 6-2 71 90 67 67 67 66 M 3 8-10 69 67 54 64 59 67 M 1 7-8 60 64 62 64 63 68 M 4 9-11 59 69 72 77 75 69 M 1 6-11 90 79 74 73 74 70 F 2 7-2 54 76 64 53 58 71 M 5 10-10 85 76 66 64 65 72 F 3 8-8 75 61 68 57 63 73 F 2 8-2 78 77 69 64 67 74 F 2 6-0 59 83 80 64 72 75 M 2 7-1 81 72 62 59 61 76 F 2 7-3 82 76 81 67 74 77 M 4 9-4 67 80 77 49 62 78 F 5 10-2 69 69 57 68 63 79 F 5 10-6 65 71 69 69 69 80 M 3 7-9 86 90 72 79 75 81 M 4 9-6 90 73 63 64 64 82 M 2 7-4 72 74 67 65 67 83 F 5 10-0 87 75 68 60 64 84 M 1 5-11 68 71 56 52 54 85 M 2 7-3 79 76 67 57 63 86 M 1 6-11 73 76 72 57 65 87 F 3 8-4 67 74 55 61 58 88 F 3 8-4 61 76 92 4q 5










RAW DATA - Continued


Sub- Age-Yr. P1 SIT WISC-V WISC-P WISC-FS jects Sex Grade & Mo. T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score


89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101
102 103 104
105
106
107
108 109 110
il
112 113
114 115
116 117 118 119
120
121 122 123 124 125
126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133
134 135
136


8-4 9-8 7-1
9-8 7-1 10-1
9-8 10-9 6-6 7-9 7-0 9-2 10-11
6-10 5-11 14-3
11-10
9-7 6-11 9-8
6-0 10-3
7-8 10-5 9-1
8-7 5-10
8-3 9-4
8-3 6-11 11-1
8-2 8-2 9-7
10-1
5-6 8-7 8-0 7-5 13-5 12-4 7-4 11-4
7-2 9-7 8-2 11-5









RAW DATA - Continued


Sub- Age-Yr. PM SIT WISC-V WISC-P WISC-FS jects Sex Grade & Mo. T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score


137 138 139 140 141
142 143 144 145 146 147
148 149 150
151 152
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163
164 165 166 167
168 169 170 171 172 173
174 175 176 177 178 179
180 181 182 183
184


6-11 5-10 9-7 7-2
8-11 9-0 9-4 7-6 13-7 6-11 8-9 9-9 8-11 8-11 9-1 7-9 9-10 7-11 8-4 7-9 9-7 8-0 8-5 9-1 10-2 7-9 9-0 7-5 6-10 9-11 8-2 8-6
10-5 7-0 9-8 8-2 6-9 9-9 5-4 10-11
5-6 7-7 10-2 9-3 5-7 7-2 8-1 9-6









RAW DATA - Continued


Sub- Age-Yr. PM SIT WISC-V WISC-P WISC-FS jects Sex Grade & Mo. T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score


185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229


9-5 10-2 7-2 6-8 10-11
8-8 10-3 7-1 6-7 6-4 6-9 9-11 7-7 7-8 6-10 7-2 9-11 8-6 6-3 7-2 7-8 9-8 6-11 10-1
7-8 7-7 6-4 6-3 11-4 8-6 10-1
8-2 7-3 10-8 6-10 10-6 10-3 9-8 8-8 9-2 8-1 6-9 10-11
14-3 9-0
















REFERENCES


Barr, A. J. and Goodnight, J. H. User's guide to Statistical Analysis
System-SAS. Raleigh, N.C.: Dept. of Statistics, North Carolina State
University, 1972.

Barratt, E. S. The relationship of the Progressive Matrices (1938) and
the Columbia Mental Maturity Scale to the WISC. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1956, 20, 294-297.

Birkemeyer, F. The relationship between the Coloured Progressive Matrices
and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Psychology in the
Schools, 1965, 2, 278-280.

Burke, H. R. Raven's Progressive Matrices: A review and critical evaluation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1958, 93, 199-228.

Burke, H. R. and Bingham, W. C. Raven's progressive matrices: more on
construct validity. Journal of Psychology, 1969, 72, 247-251.

Burt, C. The factors of the mind. New York: Macmillan, 1941.

Carlson, J. S. A note on the relationship between Raven's Coloured
Progressive Matrices Test and operational thought. Psychology in the
Schools, 1973, 10, 211-214.

Elley, W. B. and MacArthur, R. S. The Standard Progressive Matrices as a
culture-reduced measure of general intellectual ability. Alberta
Journal of Educational Research, 1962, 8, 54-65.

Estes, B. W., Curtin, M. E., DeBurger, R. A. and Denny, C. Relationships
between 1960 Stanford-Binet, WISC, Raven, and Draw-A-Man. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 1961, 25, 388-391.

Eysenck, H. J. The structure of human personality. New York: Wiley &
Sons, 1953.

Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. The identification of mentally gifted, "disadvantaged"
students at the eighth grade level. The Journal of Negro Education,
1974, 43, 53-66.

Fleming, J. M. Body image and learning of deaf and hearing boys. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1967.

Foulds, G. A. and Raven, J. C. An experimental survey with Progressive
Matrices (1947). British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1950,
20, 104-110.









Frierson, E. C. The gifted child with special learning disabilities.
In J. Helmuth (Ed.), Learning Disorders, Volume 3. Seattle:
Special Child Publications, 1968, 359-370.

Gallagher, J. J. (Ed.) Talent delayed - Talent denied. The culturally
different gifted child. A conference report. Reston, Virginia:
Foundation for Exceptional Children, 1974.

Gallagher, J. J. Teaching the gifted child (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon, Inc., 1975.

Gallagher, J. J. and Lucito, L. J. Intellectual patterns of gifted
compared with average and retarded. Exceptional Children, 1961, 27,
479-482.

Garrett, H. E. Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) for children and adults.
Catholic School Journal, 1965, 65, 84.

Gowan, j. C. Development of the creative individual. San Diego: Robert
R. Knapp, Publisher, 1972.

Gowan, J. C. and Demos, G. D. (Eds.) The guidance of exceptional children. New York: David McKay, 1965.

Gowan, J. C. and Torrance, E. P. (Eds.) Educating the ablest. Itasca, Ill.:
F. E. Peacock Publishers, 1971.

Green, M. W. and Ewert, J. C. Normative data on Progressive Matrices
(1947). Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1955, 19, 139-142.

Guilford, J. P. The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin,
1956, 53, 267-293.

Higgins, C. aid Sivers, C. H. A comparison of Stanford-Binet and Colored
Raven Progressive Matrices IQs for children with low socioeconomic
status. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22, 465-468.

Hildreth, G. H. Introduction to the gifted. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1966.

Himelstein, P. Slosson Intelligence Test: A review. In 0. K. Buros
(Ed.), Seventh mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.:
Gryphon Press, 1972.

Irvine, S. H. Towards a rationale for testing attainments and abilities
in Africa. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 36,
24-32.

Jastak, J. Problems of psychometric scatter analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 1949, 46, 177-197.

Jordan, T. E. and Bennett, C. M. Item analysis of the Coloured Progressive
Matrices (1947). Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 222.











Krichev, A. A revision that really is - the WISC-R: Review. Psycholoy
in the Schools, 1975, 12, 126-128.

Lucito, L. J. Gifted children. In L. M. Dunn (Ed.) Exceptional children
in the schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.

MacArthur, R. S. and Elley, W. B. The reduction of socioeconomic bias
in intelligence testing. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
1963, 33, 107-119.

Machen, L. H. A validity and reliability study of the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) with an atypical population - gifted children
(Doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of Pmerica, 1972).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1972 (University Microfilms
No. 72-32, 073).

Marland, S. P. Our gifted and talented children - a priceless national
resource. Intellect, 1972(b), 101, 16-19.

Martin, A. W. and Wiechers, J. E. Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices
and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1954, 18, 143-144.

Meeker, M. N. The structure of intellect. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E.
Merrill, 1969.

Meili, R. Lehrbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik. Bern: Huber, 1965.
Cited in J. S. Carlson, A note on the relationship between Raven's
Coloured Progressive Matrices Test and operational thought. Psychology
in the Schools, 1973, 10, 211-214.

Orme, J. E. Coloured Progressive Matrices as a measure. British Journal
of Medical Psychology, 1961, 34, 291-2.

Orme, J. E. Hypothetically true norms for the Progressive Matrices Test.
Human Development, 1966, 9, 222-230.

Orme, J. E. A comment on estimating WAIS IQ from Progressive Matrices
scores. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1968, 24, 94-95.

Pearson, K. Philosophical Society Transactions. London: Philosophical
Society, 1896, 187A, 253-318.

Pegnato, C. W. and Birch, J. W. Locating gifted children in junior high
schools - A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 1959, 25,
300-304.

Radford, J. Verbalization effects in a nonverbal intelligence test.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 36, 33-38.

Raven, J. C. Standardization of Progressive Matrices, 1938. British
Journal of Medical Psychology, 1941, 19, 137-150.











Raven, J. C. Standard Progressive Matrices. Sets A, B, C, D, and E.
London: H. K. Lewis & Company Ltd., 1958.

Raven, J. C. Guide to the Standard Progressive Matrices. London: H. K.
Lewis & Company Ltd., 1960.

Raven, J. C. Guide to using the Coloured Progressive Matrices. London:
H. K. Lewis & Company Ltd., 1965.

Raven, J. C. Advanced Progressive Matrices:- Sets I and IL Plan and use
of the scale. London: H. K. Lewis & Company Ltd., 1973.

Renzulli, J. J. and Hartman, R. K. Scale for rating behavioral characteristics of superior students. Exceptional Children, 1971, 38,
243-248.

Rimoldi, H. J. A. A note on Raven's Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1948, 8, 347-352.

Robinson, H. B. and Robinson, N. M. The mentally retarded child: A
psychological approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Ross, C. C. and Stanley, J. C. Measurement in today's schools. New York:
Prentice-Hall, 1954.

Sato, I. S. The culturally different gifted child - the dawning of his
day? Exceptional Children, 1974, 40, 572-576.

Sattler, J. M. Assessment of children's intelligence. Philadelphia:
W. B. Saunders Co., 1974.

Seashore, H. G. Differences between verbal and performance IQs on the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1951, 15, 62-67.

Slosson, R. L. Slosson Intelligence Test for Children and Adults. East
Aurora, N.Y.: Slosson Educational Publications, 1964.

Slosson, R. L. IQ Classification Chart and IQ Percentile Chart. East
Aurora, N.Y.: Slosson Educational Publications, 1963.

Spearman, C. The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan, 1927.

Sperrazzo, G., and Wilkins, W. L. Further normative data on the
Progressive Matrices. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22,
35-42.

Stoddard, G. D. The meaning of intelligence. New York: Macmillan, 1943.

Terman, L. M. Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 1921, 12, 127-133.






50


Thompson, J. M. and Finley, C. J. A further comparison of the intellectual
patterns of gifted and mentally retarded children. Exceptional
Children, 1962, 28, 379-381.

Thorndike, E. L. Human nature and the social order. N.Y.: Macmillan,
1940, 57-58.

Thurstone, L. L. Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1938.

Torrance, E. P. Identifying the creatively gifted among economically
and culturally disadvantaged children. Gifted Child Quarterly,
1964, 8, 171-176.

Torrance, E. P. Assessment of disadvantaged minority group children.
The School Psychology Digest, 1973, 2, 3-10.

Tuddenham, R. D., Davis, L., Davison, L., and Schindler, R. An experimental group version for school children of the Progressive Matrices.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22, 30.

Vernon, P. E. The structure of human abilities. London: Methuen, 1950.

Vernon, P. E. Environmental handicaps and intellectual development:
Part II. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965a, 35,
117-126.

Vernon, P. E. Ability factors and environmental influences. American
Psychologist, 1965b, 20, 723-733.

Wechsler, D. The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams
and Wilkins, 1941.

Wechsler, D. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York:
Psychological Corp., 1949.

Wechsler, D. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised.
New York: Psychological Corp., 1974.

Witty, P. Some considerations in the education of gifted children.
Educational Administration and Supervision, 1940, 26, 512-521.

Witty, P. The gifted child in 1967. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 1967,
11, 255-262.
















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Genevieve Downes Webber was born June 25, 1916 in Magnolia, Ohio. She attended schools in Magnolia, and received the Bachelor of Science degree in Education from the Ohio State University in 1937. A Master of Arts in Teaching degree was earned and conferred at Rollins College, in Winter Park, Florida in 1964.

Three years of secondary teaching in Cortland, Ohio was followed by a period of child rearing and related community activities. These included becoming a co-founder of the Garden City (New York) Cooperative Nursery School. Her return, in 1964, to teaching, in gifted education, led to further study, culminating in a doctoral program in special education at the University of Florida. Since 1972 she has also taught gifted child classes in the Marion County, Florida public schools.

Membership in professional organizations include The Association

for the Gifted. the Florida Association for the Gifted, the Council for Excepticnal Children, the National Education Association, i Lambda Theta, Delta Kappa Ganma, and Kappa Delta Pi.

















I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.




Mirlf-- unnn~am- -chairman Professor Emeritus, Special Education


I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.




Wi iam R. -Red ....I Professor and Chairman of Special Education

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



KQ~la D. Iokng

Professor of Special E 6 tion



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.




Richard J. Anderson Professor oI/Psychology










This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

August, 1975


College df


E cation


Dean, Graduate School


Dean,




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE PROGRESSIVE IW.TRICES, 1956 AS A SCREENING INSTPUKiENT FOR IDENTIFYING INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED PUBLIC SQIOOL STUDENTS By GENEVIEVE D. V;EBBER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE Ui^I\^P.SITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLIffiNT OF THE REQUIREt'IENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1975

PAGE 2

DEDICATION To my who keep me striving of me as I family to make them as proud am of them ,

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ".; ' ] i. The members of the committee who have supervised this study are truly responsible for its fruition. Their exemplification of the finest traits of scholar and educator will long enrich and inspire all who know them. I am grateful for this opportunity to acknowledge my great debt to each of them: to Dr. Myron A. Cunningham, Chairman, whose outstanding accomplishments of a lifetime have left him time to extend understanding and inspiration to countless fortunate students; to Dr. Richard J. Anderson, whose breadth of knowledge and clarity of thinking are exceeded only by his generosity to others; to Dr. William D. Wolking, whose scholarly dedication to his field and to his students is total; and to Dr. William R. Reid, Chairman of the Department of Special Education, whose challenging demands and setting of high standards have contributed so much to the growth and excellence of the department. My sincere appreciation is also due to: other members of the faculty, staff, and student body of the special education department; my friends of all ages in the schools of Marion County, Florida; and my understanding and encouraging family and friends of years past and present. iii

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLE DGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES V ABSTRACT vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM 1 Purpose 1 Rationale 1 Definitions of Giftedness 3 Limitations 5 Hypotheses to be Tested 6 Sxjmmary 6 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 8 The Slosson Intelligence Test 8 The Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children ... 9 The Progressive Matrices 10 Models of Intelligence 14 CHAPTER III PROCEDURES 16 Population and Sample 16 Method and Procedures , 16 Summary 18 CHAPTER IV RESULTS 19 Summary of Data 19 Testing of Null Hypotheses 27 CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS 29 APPENDIX A MODIFIED NORMS FOR STANDARD PROGRESSI'^/E MATRICES, 1956 33 APPENDIX B TABLE FOR CONVERSION TO T-SCORES (McCALL) 35 APPENDIX C SCALE FOR RATING THE CHILD AS A LEARNER 37 APPENDIX D RAW DATA 40 REFERENCES 46 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 51 iv

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table . Page 1 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION, t-TEST VALUES, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES, THE SLOSSON INTELLIGENCE TEST, AND THE WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN OR THE WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN, REVISED WITH MARION COUNTY POTENTIALLY GIFTED SUBJECTS 20 2 COMPARISON OF THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES AND SLOSSON INTELLIGENCE TEST AS SCREENING INSTRUMENTS FOR SELECTING GIFTED STUDENTS 22 3 CROSS-STUDY COMPARISONS OF COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES AND WEQiSLER TESTS 24

PAGE 6

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Coiincil of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES, 1956 AS A SCREENING INSTRUMENT FOR IDENTIFYING INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS By V . • Genevieve D. Webber August, 1975 Chairman: Myron A. Cunningham jMajor Department: Special Education The Progressive Matrices, 1956 (PM) was evaluated as an assessment instrument for use in the screening procedure of public school students who had been nominated for a program in gifted child education. The subjects were 229 boys and girls enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade in the schools of Marion County, Florida. Subjects' scores on the PM were correlated with their scores on the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) , used as a screening instrument, and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R) , used as a placement instrument. Product moment correlations between PM score means and WISC or WISC-R verbal, performance, and full scale score means were low but positively significant at the .01 level. Correlations between PM score means and seven score means of the WISC or WISC-R subtests were also significant. The correlation between the PM score mean and the SIT score mean did not reach significance. Scores on the PM, SIT, and WISC or V/ISC-R were also tallied, to determine how much, if any, PM scores would add to the predictive value

PAGE 7

of SIT scores, when used to screen students being referred for the gifted program, with the WISC or WISC-R to be used as the final evaluative instrument. Using a SIT cut-off score of 130 resulted in 90.6% effectiveness and 47.3% efficiency, and using either a 98% cut-off score on the PM (on newly developed Modified Norms) or the SIT cut-off score of 130 increased the effectiveness of the screening procedure to 97.2% effectiveness and the efficiency to 48.1%. . vii

PAGE 8

CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Purpose This study was designed to provide an evaluation of data obtained by administering J. C. Raven's (Standard) Progressive Matrices, 1956 (Raven, 1960) to public school students nominated for a gifted child education program. The relationship of these data to information available from using the Slosson Intelligence Test (Slosson, 1964) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1949) or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Giildren, Revised (Wechsler, 1974) was explored. These tests are routinely referred to as PM, SIT, WISC, and WISC-R respectively. Rationale Exceptional edvcation for students of especially high abilities has developed because of the realization that these children are frequently neglected, and that they need to be helped to develop their potential to becom.e tlie innovators and leaders needed in any society (Gowan and Torranc 1971) . This need to identify such gifted and/or talented pupils has made defining and measuring their abilities a problem of primary concern. Examiners need to develop the most effective and efficient means, measures, and techniques for pinpointing the characteristics regarded as most important for this group, as well as for any other group of students. In the interests of both social and financial economy, screening procedure for any group must have a high predictive relationship to tlie final placement measure.

PAGE 9

2 Components of the Progressive Matrices, 1956 (PM) were investigated by using this test with children referred for a program in gifted education. Students' scores on the PM were correlated with their scores on the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) , as a screening instriament, and either the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R) , as a placement instrument. The criterion for placement in the program for intellectually gifted pupils in Marion County was either a verbal, performance, or full scale score at least two standard deviations above the mean on the WISC or WISCR. As a practical concern, the screening procedure needed both high effectiveness and high efficiency (Pegnato and Birch, 1959) in identifying gifted students. This meant finding a high percentage of the gifted without also screening in too high a percentage of pupils who would fail to perform up to criterion on the final placement instrument. By definition, effectiveness is the percent of gifted children a procedure locates, and efficiency is the percent of the gifted in the number selected by the screening procedure (Gowan and Torrance, 1971; Pegnato and Birch, 1959) . In addition, instruments were needed for measuring high ability in pupils who were verbally handicapped. Although both the SIT and the Wechsler tests have been widely used in the evaluation of intellectual ability, the upper range correlations between the two tests have been much lower than with average ability subjects (Estes, Curtin, DeBurger, and Denny, 1961; Machen, 1972). Because the Wechsler tests consist of verbal and performance tasks, while the SIT emphasizes language skills, a more effective and efficient screening procedure may result from using a nonverbal measure in addition to the

PAGE 10

3 SIT. Because one outstanding factor gifted children have in common is an ability to handle abstract concepts (Gallagher, 1974; Hildreth, 1966; Terman, 1921) . the use of abstract concepts presented in symbolic terms is considered essential in identifying students of superior aptitudes. For these reasons, and because the PM has been reported to have a high £, or general ability, loading (Burke, 1958; F irke and Bingham, 1969; Irvine, 1963; Vernon, 1965a, 1965b), and a low correlation with socioeconomic status (MacArthur and Elley, 1963; Higgins and Sivers, 1958), and because it is nonverbal and little affected by the previous verbal learning experience of the testee (MacArthur and Elley, 1963) , the PM seemed a logical choice to provide these additional data. The importance of the question of how much subjects' scores on the PM will improve Slosson scores' prediction of success on the Wechsler tests results principally from three concerns. First, since parent permission is required for psychological testing, and both parents and children are interested in the reason for testing, adverse psychological and social effects frequently result from too high a rejection rate of those tested on the Wise or WISC-R. Second, the expense of administering a WISC or WISC-R dictates a need for high efficiency in identifying in the screening procedure the children and adolescents who may meet the final criterion. Third, it is vital to find those students who are not highly verbally oriented. These potentially gifted pupils are frequently also the ones who are gifted in other areas of the intellect, and include many children who cu:e highly creative (Gallagher, 1975; Gowan, 1972) as well as many from culturally different backgrounds (Torrance, 1964, 1973). Definitions of Giftedness Giftedness is basically cin exceptionally high degree of one or more

PAGE 11

4 of the many kinds of intelligence. The definition of giftedness has changed with successive concepts of intelligence. The three most frequently recurring themes in defining intelligence have included the capacity to learn, the totality of knowledge acquired, and the ability to adjust or adapt to the total environment (Robinson and Robinson, 1965) . These concepts have been extended in various ways. Terman (1921) felt that simply the ability to carry on abstract thinking constituted intelligence, thus making giftedness an especially high ability in abstract thinking. Gowan's inclusive definition called a gifted child "one whose rate of development on any significant variable is significantly greater than that of the generality" (Gowan and Demos, 1965, p. 33). VJechsler (1941) introduced the concept of intelligence as an encoicypassing global function, a function of the total personality. He stressed also the importance of intelligence being goal-directed. Jastak (1949) emphasized the importance of potential, or latent, intellectual ability. Stoddard's (1943) definition of intelligence demonstrated its variety of components : Intelligence is the ability to undertake activities that are characterized by difficulty, complexity, abstractness, economy, adaptiveness to a goal, social value , and the emergence of originals , and to maintain such activities under conditions that demand a concentration of energy and a resistance to emotional forces. (p. 4) Pearson (1896) and Burt (1941) in England, and Thurstone (1938) in America led in the development of the statistical tools necessary for further progress in investigating the nature of human abilities. Correlational techniques and factor analysis, for instance, were prerequisite to developing such concepts as the multi-factor theory of Thorndike (1940), Thurstone's (1938) concept of primary

PAGE 12

5 mental abilities, and J. P. Guilford's (1956) structure of intellect model as well as the British psychologists' hierarchical theories (Burt, 1941; Eysenck, 1953; Vernon, 1950). The parallel definitions of giftedness have been expanded to include more and more of these facets of intelligence (Sato, 1974). Paul Witty 's (1940) classic definition of giftedness as "consistently remarkable performance in any worthwhile type of human endeavor" (p. 516) includes not only intellectual ability, but also talent in music, art, dance, creative writing, mechancial skills and/or social leadership (Witty, 1967) The comprehensive definition established by the Commissioner of Education of the United States Office of Education draws from the accumulated theories of previous research, and states that: Gifted and talented children are those identified by professionally qualified persons, who by virtue of outstanding abilities are capable of high performance. These are children who require differentiated educational programs and/or services beyond those normally provided by the regular school program in order to realize their contribution to self and society. Children capable of high performance include those with demonstrated achievement and/or potential in any of the following areas , singly or in combination: general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts, psychomotor ability. It can be assumed . . . these will comprise 3-5% of the school population. (Marland, 1972, p. 10) Limitations The following factors limit the extent to which the results of this study can be generalized to other gifted and talented populations: 1. It includes only intellectually gifted referrals. 2. It includes only those students nominated by teachers and selected in each school for referral.

PAGE 13

6 3. It uses a sample which was not randomly selected. 4. It is limited to one Florida county with a school population of approximately 22,000 children and adolescents. Hypotheses to be Tested ... The general null hypothesis of this study is that, with the defined potentially-gifted sample: Students' performance on the Progressive Matrices, 1956 will not add significantly to the predictive value of the Slosson Intelligence Test, when both are used as screening instruments with pupils referred for a gifted program, with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised used as the final evaluative instrument. The specific null hypotheses of this study are that, with the defined potentially-gifted sample: , *' ' • w I The correlations of PM scores and/or SIT scores with WISC or WISC-R scores will not be significantly greater than the correlation of SIT scores with WISC or WISC-R scores. II The correlations between PM scores and WISC or WISC-R scores (verbal, performance, full scale, and subtests) will not differ significantly from each other. Summary The problem being investigated has been identified, the parameters of this study have been defined, and the selected hypotheses have been stated. The concepts of intelligence and giftedness have been explored, and the procedures to be used in this study in identifying intellectual giftedness have been described. Chapter II presents background information on the Slosson Intelligence Test, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and its recent revision, and Raven's Progressive Matrices, reviews relevant literature.

PAGE 14

7 and discusses models of intelligence. Chapter III describes the procedures used "in selecting the s\±>jects and obtaining the test data and explains the steps and procedures of handling and analyzing the data. Chapter IV presents the results of the analysis of the data. These findings are related to the postulated hypotheses. Chapter V siammarizes the study and discusses general implications.

PAGE 15

' ' CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The survey of literature includes general information and related research using the evaluation instruments employed in this study, the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) , the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R) , and Raven's Progressive Matrices (PM) . Correlation studies, especially in their use with high ability siibjects, are of particular importance. In addition, relevant models of intelligence are examined. The Slosson Intelligence Test The Slosson Intelligence Test (Slosson, 1963) is an individual test, and was adapted from and validated against the Stanford-Binet Intelligenc Scale, Form L-M. The SIT uses a ratio intelligence score, so its means and standcird deviations are not the same for all age groups (Garrett, 1965) . Also, its means are especially unstable at the upper end of the age scale (Garrett, 1965). Critics of the SIT point out its heavy emphasis on language skills, which makes it a difficult test for children with language problems, either cultural or otherwise. Further criticisms stem from the lack of either a good description of the standardization sample used to establish norms or satisfactory validity studies (Himelstein, 1972) . However, the reported correlations of from .54 to .93 between the SIT and the WISC and from .76 to .90 between the SIT and the Stanford-Binet (Himelstein, 1972)

PAGE 16

9 have been significantly high and the SIT has been widely used as a quick intellectual screening instrument. In the only available correlation study betv/een the SIT and the Wise using a gifted population, Machen (1972) found significant mean differences between SIT scores and all three principal WISC scores, with the mean SIT score averaging at least 15 points higher than the WISC scores. The V7echsler Intelligence Scales for Children The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1949) was developed by David Wechsler from his Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scales, which he had used with both children and adults. In 1974, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised was published with "a more accurate standardization sample, up-dated norms, and many item changes [to make it] an even more valuable tool than the VfllSC" (Krichev, 1975, p. 128). WISC and WISC-R scores have been treated, in this study, as interchangeable. The WISC and WISC-R are administered to children from age 5 years to 15 years, 11 months, and from age 6 years to 16 years, 11 months,, respectively. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and the Wechsler Pre-School and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI) extend Wechsler testing up tlirough adulthood and down to preschool age. The deviation scores of the Wechsler instruments avoid much of the variability of the ratio scores. A score of 130 marks both the point which is two standard deviations above the mean and the lower limit of the top 2% of the population tested. This is a frequently used cut-off score for placement in gifted education programs. The 12 tests are divided into

PAGE 17

10 verbal and performance sections, each also yielding a deviation score. The separate verbal and performance scores, together with the eight to 12 subtest scores, provide additional data for identifying an individual's strengths and weaknesses more specifically (Sattler, 1974). Harold Seashore (1951) found that the WISC scores of about one third of a random group of children varied more than 12 points between their verbal and performance intelligence quotients. Frierson (1968) found that a sample of gifted children also included approximately one third whose verbal and performance intelligence scores varied widely, but up to 30 points or more. Gallagher and Lucito (1961) found that gifted children scored higher on the WISC sx±)tests having a verbal comprehension factor, the information, similarities, comprehension, and vocabulary subtests; and also the block design and object assembly; and scores were lower on picture completion, picture arrangement, and digit span. Gifted and retarded sx±ijects' profiles of scores were found to present reversed patterns, or mirror images of each other (Lucito, 1965). Thompson and Finley's (1962) results with a larger sample in general confirmed the findings of Gallagher and Lucito. The Progressive Matrices J. C. Raven (1965) described his matrices as a test of nonverbal intellectual ability, rather than of general intelligence, and recommended that it be used with a vocabulary test in order to supplement its measure of capacity with a measure of acquired information. The PM was designed to cover intellectual development from infancy to maturity, to measure intellectual capacity independently of verbal ability or manual dexterity, and to be equally useful with persons of all ages and levels of ability

PAGE 18

11 (Foulds and Raven, 1950) . Research findings from all of the Progressive Matrices' three similar versions, the Coloured Progressive Matrices, the (Standard) Progressive Matrices, and the Advanced Progressive Matrices, have been included in this review. The Progressive Matrices (PM) is a cognitive test of nonverbal problem-solving ability, one which reduces the influence of both schooling and motor handicaps to a minimum (Martin and Wiechers, 1954) . Although PM is a nonlanguage test, it requires a high level of insight and reasoning ability, and appears to sample a broad aspect of ability common to a wide variety of intelligence and achievement tests (Elley and MacArthur, 1952) . Two basic mental processes underlie solving the matrices first seeing relationships and then recognizing correlates (Elley and MacArthur, 1962; Jordan and Bennett, 1957). Two additional tests were developed from the basic PM, 1938 and were published in 1947. The Coloured Progressive Matrices Test (CPM) was designed for use with children from 3 to 11 years of age (Burke, 1958; Raven, 1965) , as well as with individuals suspected of being mentally defective (Burke, 1958). A formboard version of the CPM (Raven, 1965) was developed but is not commercially available. The Advanced Progressive Matrices Test (Raven, 1973) was developed for persons over 11 years of age of average or more than average intellectual ability. For normal subjects aged 6 or 8 years and over, the (Standard) Progressive Matrices, Sets A through E, printed in black and white, is used (Burke, 1958; Raven, 1941, 1960). In 1956 the basic 1938 version was revised slightly, as a result of various item analyses. This 1956 revision of the Progressive Matrices, 1938 has been selected for this research as the form best matched to the ability levels of potentially gifted pupils enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade.

PAGE 19

12 In each version of the PM, the first problejn is intended to be selfevident, and the problems are arranged so that success on the easy ones at the beginning helps to train each individual how to solve the succeeding problems (Burke, 1958). Since this progressive increase in difficulty makes it a tester of what it teaches, and because it appears to be little affected by the previous experience of each testee, PM has a high face validity (MacArthur and Elley, 1963). In his research, J. S. Carlson (1973) found that the PM assesses an individual's al^ility in simple pattern completion, concrete reasoning by spatial arialogy, and abstract reasoning by analogy. The themes of the five sets of matrix problems extend from continuous patterns in Set A through analogies between pairs of figures, progressive alterations of patterns , and permutations of figures , to resolution of figures into constituent parts in Set E (Burke, 1958). Helpful diagnostic information is available through an analysis of the kinds of avoidable errors made (Raven, 1960). Avoidable errors are defined as tliose below the score on each set which would normally be expected for an individual's total score (Raven, 1960). Such inconsistent errors in Sets A and B especially point to faulty perception, particularly in figure-field or gestalt areas (Rimoldi, 1948). Avoidable errors in Sets C or D indicate weaknesses in more complex analytic or integrative operations (Carlson, 1973) , while unexpected errors in Set E point most directly to limitations in analytical or algebraic processes (Rimoldi, 1948) . Handicaps of either motor coordination or of verbal ability are also evident (Green and Ewert, 1955). , • Although Raven's original Scottish standardization samples seem

PAGE 20

13 minimal, his norms have been consistently corroborated by otheu researchers (Elley and MacArthur, 1962; Sperrazzo and VJilkins, 1958; Tuddenham, Davis, Davison, and Schindler, 1958). Elley and MacArthur (1962) in Canada and Rimoldi (1948) in Argentina obtained norms similar to Raven's. Sperrazzo eUid Wilkins (1958) found their results had high correlations with Raven's norms, in spite of some indication that the ceiling of the CPM may be too low for a population of average American children aged 7 to 11 years. As a partial exception. Green and Ewert (1955) found that norms for their 6-to-12-year old subjects in the Rochester, Minnesota, area averaged three points higher than Raven's. The PM has been a useful research tool, especially in the study of the growth and deterioration of mental efficiency, and it shows intercorrelations with other tests of mental ability as high, in general, as they show with one einother (Burke, 1958). Only a few Wechsler-PM correlation studies have been done, and most have dealt with either older, si±>normal , or pathological populations. In those done with so-called normal children, Martin and Wiechers (1954) administered the CPM to 100 9-year old children, with correlations of .84, .83, and .91 for PM-WISC verbal, performance, and full-scale comparisons respectively. Barratt (1956) used the (Standard) PM, 1938 with 70 fourth-grade subjects and obtained PM-WISC correlations of .69, .70, and .75 respectively. F. Birkemeyer (1965) , in a study of pairs of Spanish or Negro and Anglo pupils, matched by sex, age, and full scale Wise scores, found a low positive PM-WISC relationship for the verbal section (.40 for Speinish and Negro, .22 for Anglo) but a high relationship for the performcince section (.74 for Spanish and Negro, .70 for Anglo) . Using the PM, 1938 and the Coloured PM with 72 laboratory school subjects of above average intelligence, Estes et al. (1961) found much

PAGE 21

14 lower PM-WISC correlations (.55, .91, and .75) than Martin and Wiechers' results . As in much other research with the PM, the lack of agreement in results seems to indicate a need for much more broadly conceived research into the usefulness of the PM as an evaluative and diagnostic tool in American schools. It has often shown promising results. Models of Intelligence The combination of experimental psychology and its analytical capabilities with educational testing made possible the broad theoretical constructs which have attempted to organize the whole range of human abilities into one system. L. L. Thurstone (1938) led the way in America by utilizing the resources of factor analysis in trying to identify the factors most involved in successful human activity. He found no such global concept as Spearman's £ (1927) , or general ability. Instead, he found groups of specific abilities, and called these factors primary mental abilities. His factors, which were well supported by later researchers, included verbal comprehension, word fluency, numerical ability, spatial relations, associative memory, perceptual speed, and inductive reasoning. This model has provided the basis for many widely used tests. J. P. Guilford (1956) has continued and refined Thurstone 's work. His theoretical 120-cell structure of intellect attempts to classify and then interrelate all intelligent human behavior, by considering it from three points of view. He analyzes the major kinds of intellectual activities or processes, the broad classes or types of information handled, and the forms in which information is processed. His kinds of activities include figural as visual or kinesthetic only; figural with accompanying

PAGE 22

15 . meaning, or symbolic; words and ideas; and social, or behavioral. His model has been related by Mary Meeker (1969) to various intelligence measuring instruments in order to derive added diagnostic information from such tests, E. L. Thorndike (1940), as the culmination of over fifty years' research in learning, theorized three principal kinds of intelligence. He called these abstract, or the ability to handle ideas; mechanical, or the ability to understand things; and social, or the ability to understand persons. His accompanying list of particular abilities is broadly and practically conceived. He includes the following areas: leadership, the ability to cooperate, energy, persistence, the ability to control oneself, the ability to control others, persuasiveness, popularity, political ability, the ability to fulfill a vocational role, the ability to fulfill roles as an adult and citizen, and the ability to adapt to reality (Thorndike, 1940, pp. 57-58). The usefulness of such models of intelligence as these lies not only in their pointing the way to further research, but also in their diagnostic values in helping individuals to plan optimiam programs of learning.

PAGE 23

CHAPTER III PROCEDURES Population and Sample ^ The population consisted of all potentially gifted students in the elementary and middle public schools in Marion County, Florida, as identified by procedures established by the Marion County School Board. The sample consisted of all pupils nominated for the gifted education program who had been given the Progressive Matrices, 1956 (PM) , the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) , and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) or Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised (WISC-R) during the period between September 1, 1973 and June 30, 1975. Method and Procedures Nominations and teacher-rating scales (Appendix C) used with potentially gifted students were solicited from all Marion County public school personnel who had contacts with possible candidates for the gifted program. The PM was given to more than the 229 subjects comprising the final sample. It was administered in small groups and untimed. All testing was conducted by the autiior, with the eixception of two subjects who were tested by a guidance counselor's aide, and 15 who were tested by the other Marion County teacher of the gifted. All PM test protocols were scored by the author. The SIT was administered by each school's guidance counselor, to all promising nominees. Local guidance committees in each school then reviewed the available data and decided whether or not a formal referral should be 16

PAGE 24

17 made for further psychological testing. Since the SIT was the official referring instrument, the PM scores received widely varying emphases in these decisions. If a referral v;as made, a county school psychologist decided, on t-he basis of all data submitted, whether or not to administer either the WISC or WISC-R. If the Wechsler test was given, that student became a subject in this study and ttie correlations among his PM, SIT, and WISC or WISC-R scores were analyzed. In August, 1974 the Marion County school psychologists officially replaced the WISC with its newly available revision, the WISC-R. Raven's (1960) PM guide provides percentile norms for ages 8 years through 14 years only, and these norms are given for only seven percentiles (5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 90, and 95). Therefore, these norms had to be extrapolated and interpolated to provide the differentiation especially needed at the upper end of the ability scale. Sources used in modifying and extending Raven's norms included Raven's (1941) description of his standardization procedures , his Guide to Using the Coloured Progressive Matrices (1965), Sperrazzo and Wilkin's (1958) research in St. Louis, Green and Ewert's (1955) research studies with the CPM in Rochester, Minnesota, and Orme's (1961, 1966, 1968) normative studies. These Modified Norms (Appendix A) have been used throughout this research. Because the scores of the PI-l, SIT, and WISC or WISC-R are not directly comparable, the percentile scores of the PM, the ratio test scores of the SIT, and the deviation test scores of the WISC or WISC-R were converted to standard McCall T-scores (Ross and Stanley, 1954) , with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. A table for converting all scores into T-scores was developed (Appendix B) and all test score data were handled in T-score form. This was done for simpler statistical

PAGE 25

18 treatment to some degree, but the more obvious advantage v;as the ready and direct equivalence of interpretation. Test score data included the PM and SIT scores and the verbal, performance, and full scale scores and the scores of the subtests of the VJISC or WISC-R tests. Means and standard deviations on scores from all tests were calculated. The standard scores for the three tests were compared by analysis of variance, and Pearson product moment coefficients of correlation were computed. In addition, scores were tallied from the raw data to compare the relative effectiveness and efficiency (Pegnato and Birch, 1959) of the PM and SIT as screening instr\Jinents . Summary The subjects in this study were pupils who had been referred as potentially gifted by teachers and other school personnel in Marion County, Florida. The subjects were enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade and were from 5 to 14 years old when the PM was administered. The tests given were the Slosson Intelligence Test, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised, and the Progressive Matrices, 1956. The SIT was administered individually by school counselors , the WISC or VJISC-R individually by county school psychometrists or psychologists, and the PM in small groups by a Marion County teacher of the gifted.

PAGE 26

. ; CHAPTER IV "V* ' ; " ' RESULTS ' " ' ' • ' f. ..t ' " Summary of Data . -'T >' > . Test scores on the Progressive Matrices, 1956 for 229 high ability students from kindergarten through eighth grade v/ere compared with their scores on the Slosson Intelligence Test and either the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised. All scores were treinsformed into T-score form and tabulated (Appendix D) , and an analysis of variance and a correlation matrix were generated. All calculations were performed by the Northeast Regional Data Center IBM 370/165 of the University System of the State of Florida. The language used was the Statistical Analysis System (Barr and Goodnight, 1972) . The procedures used were analysis of variance, correlation matrix, sort, and list. t-Test values for PM-WISC or-WISC-R score correlations were computed. The .05 and .01 levels of confidence were selected as suitable indicators of statistical significance. The coefficients of correlation among PM, SIT, and WISC or WISC-R verbal, performance, and full scale scores are the first items shown in the first and second columns of Table 1. The correlations between PM and WISC or WISC-R indicate the high general strength of the PM in predicting future success on both sections of the VZechsler instruments. Although these correlations are of a different order from those resulting from 19

PAGE 27

20 TABLE 1 COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION, t-TEST VALUES, MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES, THE SLOSSON INTELLIGENCE TEST, AND THE WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN OR THE WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN, REVISED WITH MARION COUNTY POTENTIALLY GIFTED SUBJECTS SIT PM PM MEAN s.d. N = 229 .. ra r t (McCall T-scores^) JIT .126 8. ,69** 76. .64 6 .22 ?M .126 69. .71 11 .13 nSC or WISC-R Verbal .463** .226** 2, ,55* 67, .65 8 .16 Performance .197** .219** 9. ,84** 61. .77 7 .95 Full Scale .429** .292** 6. .50** 64. .92 6 .55 Information .332** .142* 0. ,05 69, .76 11 .16 Csmprehension .220** 7137*' 4, .51"*^ 64. .89 13 .29 Arithmetic .256** .115 " 3. .21** 66. .42 11 .80 Similarities . .239** .152* 0, .38 69. .34 11 .04 Vocabulary .402** .221** 2. . 14* 67. .73 11 .08 Digit Span .090 .088 7, .75** 60, .96 12 .60 Picture Completion .182** .225** 8, .79** 61. .16 12 .38 Picture Arrangement .036 .059 7, .95** 61. .19 12 .39 Block Design .163* .276** 6, ,45** 63. .61 12 .51 Object Assembly .065 .261** 9, .85** 60, .55 11 .89 Coding .054 .113 7, .11** 61, .24 15 .19 Mazes data not included due to small N *Significant at .05 level **Signif icant at .01 level ^Pearson product moment coefficient of correlation ^McCall T-score Standard score with mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10

PAGE 28

21 comparisons of si:i)jects covering a wider intelligence range, they are significant at the .01 level. Nondirectional t-test values, shown at the top of the third column of Table 1, were calculated, comparing PM means with all of the other variables listed in Table 1. These t-test values demonstrate that even with this highly restricted population the PM scores differ in level from the other scores. ' , . , All of these four t-test values are greater than the critical difference, 1.96 at the .05 level of significance. All except one show greater than the .01 level of significance, 2.58. This indicates that these tests are not identical in the way they measure the abilities of students. As shown in the second colxjmn of Table 1, not only the verbal, performance, and full scale scores, but four subtest scores of the WISC or WISC-R, three performance and one verbal, also correlate very highly with PM scores. In addition, three additional verbal s\ibtest scores correlate significantly, at the .05 level. The low correlation, .126, of PM scores with SIT scores provides further evidence that the PM is measuring different facets of intelligence from those reflected in a SIT score. Table 2 shows the comparative effectiveness and efficiency (terms as defined in Chapter I and as explained in Table 2) , for several possible cut-off scores, of the PM and the SIT in screening nominees for a gifted program. For this further comparison, two screening procedures were assumed, both including teacher recommendations and rating scales, with one also including the SIT and the other including both the SIT and the PM. Comparing the percentage of subjects, in each of the two screening procedures, who reached the recjuired criterion, a verbal, performance.

PAGE 29

22 TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES i^iND SLOSSON INTELLIGENCE TEST AS SCREENING INSTRUMENTS FOR SELECTING GIFTED STUDENTS Required criterion for admission to the gifted program: Verbal, Performance, or Full Scale score at least two standard deviations above the mean on the Wise or WISC-R. N = 229 Potentially gifted subjects N = 106 Si±ijects reaching required criterion for gifted program Screening Instrument (s) Used Cut-off Score Number Selected by Screening Number of Gifted Selected Effectiveness Effxcib ency^ PM 95 124 69 .651 .556 PM 98 102 56 .528 .549 PM 98.6 94 50 .472 .532 PM 99.5 71 42 .396 .592 SIT 130 203 96 .906 .473 SIT 135 170 87 .821 .512 SIT 140 134 76 ' .717 .567 SIT or 130 214 103 .972 .481 PM 98 SIT or 135 PM 95 207 102 .962 .493 SIT or 135 PM 98.6 200 98 .925 .490 SIT or 140 PM 98 170 91 .858 .535 SIT and 130 91 PM 98 50 .472 .549 SIT and 140 PM 98 66 43 .406 .652 ^Percent of Gifted Selected: Number of actual gifted who v/ere selected as gifted by screening procedure, divided by total number of actual gifted. ^Percent of Gifted Selected by Screening: Number of actual gifted who were selected as gifted by screening procedure, divided by total number selected as gifted by screening procedure.

PAGE 30

23 or full scale score at least two standard deviations above the mean on the placement instrument, shows in Table 2 that adding the PM to the SIT in the screening procedure increased both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the screening procedure. With a cut-off score of 130 on the SIT or of 98 on the PH effectiveness was increased from 90.6% to 97.2%, while efficiency was increased from 47.3% to 48.1%. Since both high effectiveness and moderate efficiency are necessary (Pegnato and Birch, 1959; Gowan and Torrance, 1971), the effectiveness and efficiency of a screening procedure can be balanced at the level dictated by economical and psychological considerations by adjusting the cut-off point on each screening instrument. The examples shown of possible combinations tend to indicate using a SIT cut-off score slightly higher than 130 with a PM cut-off score possibly lower than 98 (on Modified Noms , Appendix A). Of the 106 students achieving the specified criterion on the placement instrument, 83 reached criterion on their WISC verbal scores, 46 on their performance scores, and 55 on their full scale scores. Varying WISC or WISC-R criterion requirements would modify the recommendations of this study. As Table 1 shows , the correlations between PM scores and Wechsler verbal scores and between PM scores and Wechsler perfoirmance scores for this research sample are almost the same, with the verbal the higher of the two. An examination of both verbal and performance subtest content and score correlations helps to explain how a nonverbal test can also be a predictor of success in verbal tasks. The PM-Wechsler verbal subtest correlations show a highly significant relationship between PM and vocabulary at the .01 level, and correlations with the PM reach significance on the subtests comprehension, information, and similarities at the .05 level.

PAGE 31

24 en g 03 Eh W O 03 M W fa U fa H W Pi O Eh O < fa o g 03 H 2 03 O 03 CO w « o < Q g ft O U fa » S Q ^3 Eh 03 I ? 03 fi 03 M u z o H z +J +J (0 u C\ (N • o CO • O CO C 0) +J u 10 -H 2 S o o II z -a 0) p +j •H >i -i •p < c p 0 u o -H m -a 01 -p (C 4-1 rH o O 03 n • H II m CN CN • •H II CM CM O Z --I rH 01 0) +J 01 10 CM +J II (U Z I 03 m CN o CO ca H c • ifl TJ 0) • S (0 m(TiinC0r-^03vDHrHOO00MCN * * * * * * CN ^ * * in Ln c •<3irOrHr~OlDCMrO CN CO PI O I li) in r~ i~U3 «;rooo^criCNii)ini-(o <-) iH rH O O --H O rH rH rH O rH * O ro o CM rH * -K * * * * CTl CN CM rH (Tl CN CN CN * * cs rH rH in CN rH in * * * * •K He "K 4^ rH CO in rH fN 00 CN in vD (N O CN O CN CN in rH in in (Ti r~ 1 on 01 o 0) c •H 03 £ 03 u 0 01 u H >i c 0 H c rH •H c •rl P ^H to O (0 ns 4-1 0) -p H (0 a u rO J3 M rH 03 o >H rH 03 0) e rO 3 u O (0 0 rH P 3 rH 0 •H ^ H P u -s u rH 14H •H a O CP u 03 0) C o )H •H 0 •H •H H > ft fa H u < 03 > Q ft p c e 0) u < !h 3 P o H cr> 0) •H 03 01 01 0) p u c •H •n 13 N J3 P (0 01 0) ft ffl O O S •0 3 +) 01 C •H (0 (1) o o u •H c c -o -a •rl •H •H > (U 0) in H o o p -p (0 (0 •p -p o o -H -H <*H HH -H -H c c Cn CP •r4 -rl 03 03 * * * 01 a o H 4-> (0 rH (U u u o u MH 0 (U U c (0 (0 o 03 (U O a 4H C 01 (0 03 03 (0 XI

PAGE 32

25 Many similar learning characteristics contribute to both tlie perceptual, abstract problem solving of the PM items and to the verbal comprehension area represented by these four subtests . Both vocabulary and similarities measure symbolic functioning and abstract reasoning, while information and comprehension are related to alertness and awareness and practical judgment, but not to abstract reasoning directly. In Table 3 is shown a comparison of the PM-Wechsler correlations of this study with those of other studies referred to in Chapter II. Included are studies by Martin and Wiechers (1954) and Barratt (1956) using subjects within the average range of intelligence. Birkemeyer's (1965) two samples have been omitted from Table 3, due to small N's, 28 in each group. In the superior intellectual range are the research sample used by Estes et al. (1961) and both the total sample of potentially gifted subjects used in this study, and the portion of the sample officially admitted to the Marion County program in gifted education. This portion includes several students who scored 130+ on either the verbal or performance section without achieving a full scale score of 130+ on the WISC or WISC-R. It also includes a few siabjects with WISC or WISC-R scores slightly below 130 but with exceptionally high achievement indicators. The sets of correlations for both samples of this study are in basic agreement with previous research. The restricted nature of the samples used in this study, with their combination of high means and low standard deviations, has greatly attenuated the correlations obtained. In the study by Estes et al. the correlation between the PM score and the Wechsler performance score was much higher than the PM-verbal score correlation. Barratt 's siobjects showed a fractionally higher PMWISC performance correlation. The Martin and Wiechers subjects and the

PAGE 33

26 two Marion County samples all reverse tliis relationship and show PM-WISC verbal score correlations slightly higher than their PM-WISC performance correlations. This variation in order may be related to a difference in student samples. The subjects for Estes et al. attended a university laboratory school and were selected on the basis of availability of scores for the 1937 Stanf ord-Binet L and M forms and scores for the WISC full scale, while the selection of sxibjects for the present study began with teacher referral for suspected giftedness. Barratt's subjects comprised the entire fourth-grade enrollment of one school, so were a more random sample. Further research with large random samples should help to establish the relationship between intellectual level and difference between PM-WISC verbal and PM-WISC performance correlations more conclusively. The present study shov/s how it has functioned in one county population. The low correlation between PM and SIT, together with its high t-test value, as shown in Table 1, further indicates that the nature of the verbal tasks of the Wechsler tests differs noticeably from that of the SIT. Other related information should also be noted. The Barratt and the Martin and Wiechers samples were principally of a more normal intellectual level, both with much larger standard deviations than either of the Marion County samples. The range for the subjects used by Estes et al. was from 84 to 159 on the Stanford-Binet, which indicates a larger standard deviation also. In addition, according to the research of Estes et al., the Stanford-Binet mean score of 123 for their sample was the equivalent of a WISC full scale score of 116, which also mcUces their subjects less similar to the Marion County subjects. In addition, none of the other studies used exactly the same version

PAGE 34

27 of the PM, 1938 used in the present research. Both Birkemeyer and Martin and Wiechers used the Coloured PM, Barratt used the (Standard) PM, 1938, and Estes et al. used both the PM, 1938 and the Coloured PM. Some of the older or more able students may have found the Coloured PM too easy. Further research should also fully investigate the appropriateness of PM versions for various ability levels. Testing of Null Hypotheses Hypothesis I states that using whichever is higher, the PM or the SIT score, will not provide a significantly better prediction of WISC or WISC-R scores than the SIT scores alone. As shown in Table 1, the highly significant coefficients of correlation between the PM and Wechsler scores, together with their significant t-test values, provide evidence that PM scores are highly significant predictors of WISC or WISC-R scores. The relative effectiveness and efficiency of using PM and/or SIT scores for screening instead of SIT scores by themselves is shown in the comparisons in Table 2, Since effectiveness increased from 90.6% to 97.2%, and efficiency increased from 47.3% to 48.1% when PM scores were also used. Hypothesis I is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Hypothesis II states that the relationship between PM scores and Wechsler subtest scores, as well as verbal, performance, and full scale scores, will not provide significantly diagnostic differentiation. As shown in Table 1 , ten of the 14 correlations between PM and Wechsler scores show significance at the .05 level, with seven of them significant at the .01 level. Furthermore, 12 of the 14 t-test values shown in Table 1 reach significance at the .05 level, with only three of those

PAGE 35

28 failing to show significance also at the .01 level. Hypothesis II is therefore also rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. With the rejection of both specific null hypotheses, the general null hypothesis is automatically rejected also. Thus, the general conclusion of this investigator is that using both the Progressive Matrices and the Slosson Intelligence Test as components of a screening procedure for identifying gifted children is significantly more indicative of the abilities of students than using only the Slosson Intelligence Test as a screening test.

PAGE 36

CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS The nonverbal Progressive Matrices test has been shown to be a highly effective adjunct to the primarily verbal Slosson Intelligence Test in screening nominees for a program in gifted education. A related concern has been to derive from the PM information about each student and his capabilities so that an educational prescription may be formulated. Guilford (1956) called the PM a two-dimensional analogy and a perceptual-figural test related to the conceptual tests of verbal analogies and word matrices. Components of the reasoning processes required to score on the PM include gestalt forces, memory, class inclusion and multiplicative classification (Carlson, 1973) , analytic and integrating operations (Meili, 1965), inductive reasoning (Rimoldi, 1948), sequencing ability, figure-ground and spatial discrimination, cuid speed of perception (Fleming, 1967) . Many of these components sample the higher order thinking processes, in addition to measuring basic coordination and elementary logical thinking. In this writer's opinion, the following specific areas within Guilford's model of intelligence, as described by Meeker (1969) , are most directly concerned with the PM components identified by the above researchers: cognition of figural relations; evaluation of figural units and relations; evaluation of symbolic systems, transformations, and implications; evaluation of

PAGE 37

30 semantic systems, relations, and implications; convergent production of symbolic relations, systems, transformations, and implications; and convergent production of semantic implications or problem solving, (pp. 33-80) Significantly high correlations between the PM score and various Wise or VJISC-R subtest scores can be used as further clues to what a PM score indicates. As shown in the second column of Table 1, block design, object assembly, picture completion, vocabulary, similarities, and information rank respectively high. Of these seven subtests, those on which score means, in the fourth column of Table 1, are also high include vocabulary, similarities, aind block design. Logically, these high correlations of high scores imply a high probability that s\ibjects who score high on the PM will also score high on the Wechsler subtests vocabulary, similarities, and block design. This further implies a probability that students scoring high on the PM will also show the same learning characteristics that are reportedly (Sattler, 1974) measured by these three subtests. Vocabulary, for instance, is designed to measure language and learning ability, memory, a general fund of information, and concept formation, and requires abstract reasoning for a high score. A high score on the similarities stibtest indicates good verbal concept formation, or abstract thinking, as well as a high level of logical thinking. The block design subtest is designed to be a test of nonverbal abstract reasoning, integrative capacity and insight, visual-motor coordination, and perceptual speed and organization. The similarity between a list of the characteristics measured by these three subtests and the components of the reasoning processes required to do well on the PM corroborates the basic assumption that PM scores can be used to predict probable success on the Wechsler sTobtests vocabulary, similarities, and block design, and predict probable success

PAGE 38

also in the abilities measured by these subtests. A student's PM score can be helpful diagnostically through a twoV7ay analysis. A very high PM score and low indicators in verbal, or visual motor, or abstract reasoning areas would indicate a need to look for the reason(s) for the discrepancy. Conversely, very high indicators in one or more of the other areas and an unexpectedly low PM score would also indicate a need to look for a reason for the deficit. As an example, a student scoring very low on the PM and high on the SIT would need to be carefully evaluated in the perceptual area, if the kinds of errors made on tJie PM were not otherwise explainable. Analyzing the kinds of errors made in solving the PM problems is the most direct way to begin finding explanations of inconsistent weakness. Analyzing and comparing all other indicators of his various abilities is the next step. In curricular planning also, all the clues available from the relationships between PM scores and other indicators, as well as from a careful analysis of any errors made on the PM, need to be used in planning individualized programs designed for both logical development of all abilities and for remediation of any weaknesses. Utilizing a broad concept of intelligence, as Meeker (1969) has with Guilford's model, provides helpful parameters within which to derive differential intellectual assessment and .plan educational experiences designed to best develop the abilities of all children, including the gifted segment of the school population. Meeker (1969) has developed also a useful format for communicating assessment information and ensuing recommendations for students' individual school programs. Developing an effective means of sharing and utilizing all information and implications derived from

PAGE 39

32 pupil assessment must be done if a testing program is to serve its real purpose. The PM has proved itself to be a versatile tool. Its administration can be varied in different ways for many purposes. For instance, immediate feedback can be provided for each response and an opportunity given to discover the correct answer, making the PM instrument even more a measure of a subject's ability to learn. Higher consistency of performance could also be expected from such an approach (Radford, 1956) , since impulsivity would be discouraged. ^ Just as the PM, 1956 should be given to primary age students who do especially well on the CPM, so should the Advanced PM be made available to older subjects scoring high on the PM, 1956, in order to provide more conclusive differentiation at the highest ability levels (Fitz-Gibbon, 1974). Using the PM as a timed test to assess students' speed of accurate intellectual work (Burke, 1958), slide presentations to larger groups (Fleming, 1967) , or write-on booklet versions, are other promising variations. All of these and other adaptations need to be explored. Further investigation of the PM is needed with random groups of subjects, in order to compare gifted with other ability levels and achieve more conclusive results. Correlating socioeconomic status and ability level with score on the PM would be an especially fruitful study, for the PM is generally recognized as a culture-reduced nonverbal test of general ability (Sattler, 1974) . This study has made a beginning in assessing the usefulness of the PM as a diagnostic instrument to be used with potentially gifted elementary and middle school subjects. Results indicate that it contributes often unsuspected information to the screening procedure and to the educational planning process.

PAGE 40

APPENDIX A MODIFIED NORMS FOR STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES, 1956

PAGE 41

34 ^.PPENDIX A MODIFIED NORMS FOR STMIDARD PROGPESSIVE MATRICES, 1956 TOTAi SCORE Percentile T-Score Points (HcCall) Age 1 5 5'j 1 6 1 6>5 1 7 1 r-. 1 6 1 e-. 1 9 1 10 t i-Ci 11 i 11-. i 12 1 12^ 13 13S 14 99.9'Jl 90+ 32 34 1 36 1 38 1 40 1 42 i 44 1 46 1 48 1 50 1 52 i 54 1 56 ' 55 1 57 1 5S 1 58 59 60 99.99 89 31 "1 35 ! 37 1 39 i 41 1 43 1 46 ( 48 1 IFT 54 i 56 1 5r-, 1 57 ' 56 j 53 59 59 99.98 88 31 33 1 35 1 37 1 39 1 41 . 43 1 46 1 43 1 50T 52 1 54 1 56 1 56 1 57 1 53 58 59 59 99.97 67 1 30 32 34 1 56 1 33 ; 41 1 43 1 45 1 47 1 I9T 51 i 54 ! 56 i 56 ! 57 . 58 58 59 59 99.96 36 1 30 32 34 1 36 1 38 1 40 1 42 1 45 1 47 1 -ill 51 1 54 1 56 ! 56 ' 57 1 58 53 59 59 99.95 85 1 29 31 33 35 1 37 ! 43 1 42 1 45 1 47 1 49 ( 51 I " 1 55 1 55 ! 56 57 57 58 53 99.94 BA ! 29 31 33 35 1 37 1 39 1 42 1 45 1 ill 51 1 5 3 1 55 i 55 1 5c 57 57 58 58 99.93 83 1 28 30 32 1 34 1 36 1 29 1 42 1 45 1 47 1 49 1 51 1 53 1 55 t 55 ' 56 57 57 58 58 99.92 82 1 28 30 32 1 34 1 36 i — — — 1 41 ' 44 1 46 ; 48 1 50 I 53 1 55 1 55 1 56 57 57 55 58 99.91 81 1 27 29 31 1 33 1 35 1 38 41 ! 44 j 46 ( 48 50 53 i = 5 i 55 i 56 57 57 58 SB 99.9 80 1 27 29 31 1 33 1 35 1 38 41 1 44 1 45 1 -S 1 -0 i 53 : 5= ! 55 1 56 57 57 59 58 99.8 79 26 28 30 1 34 1 38 41 1 44 1 ^6 1 isl '50' I " t = = i 55 ! 56 57 57 58 58 99.7 78 26 1 28 30 ! 32 1 37 40 1 43 j 45 . •:9 1 52 . 54 ! 54 1 56 55 56 57 57 99.6 77 25 27 1 29 1 31 I 33 1 37 43 t 43 1 45 ! 47 1 49 1 . -.1 52 1 54 i 54 i 55 56 56 57 57 99.5 76 25 29 1 31 1 33 1 37 40 j 45 1 "47^ •'9 i 52 1 54 ! 54 ! 55 55 55 55 :>6 99.4 75 24 26 28 1 30 1 32 1 37 40 44 1 "in 49 1 " 1 \ \ 54 55 55 56 56 99.2 74 24 ! 26 28 1 30 I 21 1 36 40 ; 42 1 44 1 43 51 5 3 1 53 ! 54 55 1 55 56 56 99 73 23 ! 25 29 1 31 1 36 40 42 1 44 1 46 1 48 1 C ^ — X 53 1 53 1 54 i 54 55 55 98.6 72 23 25 27 1 29 ! J0_| 36 39 41 1 43 1 45 4S 51 i 53 i 53 1 53 54 1 54 55 55 98.2 71 22 24 26 1 28 1 30 1 35 39 i 4 43 4 5 47 50 1 52 1 52 53 54 54 55 55 98 70 21 1 23 25 27 1 29 1 35 39 i 41 1 i 45 — 47 50 1 52 ! 52 53 53 53 54 54 97 69 21 23 25 127 1 23 i 35 40 1 42 ! 44 *i6 43 1 51 i 52 52 53 53 54 54 9G.4 68 20 22 24 26 1 28 1 34 39 t 40 42 1 •14 46 49 1 51 ' 52 52 |53 53 54 54 96 67 20 22 24 i26 1 23 1 34 33 1 3"^ 41 43 45 43 1 50 i 51 51 152 52 53 53 95 66 19 21 23 125 i 27 1 24 38 39 41 43 45 43 50 51 51 1 52 52 53 53 93 65 IS 20 22 i24 1 26 1 33 1 37 38 40 ^ "1 44 47 49 50 50 ^1 52 53 92 64 17 15 20 23 ! 25 ! 32 1 36 37 39 41 44 46 4S > 50 50 151 51 5LJ 52 90 63 16 13 20 in 24 1 31 1 34 36 38 41 43 -iS 47 . 49 49 1 50 50 51 52 89 62 15 17 19 23 i 30 t 35 37 L-f44 45 1 45 48 1 40 50 51 51 86 61 14 16 l~ 21 1 23 1 29 1 31 34 36 41^ ^3 45 47 iS 1 '^^ 45 50 51 84 60 14 16 16 20 1 22 I 27 1 29 33 25 38 40 •^2 44 46 47 |42 45 50 50 82 59 14 15 17 19 i 21 1 25 1 28 32 34 39 41 43 45 46 147 43 !49 50 79 5S 13 T r 17 19 1 20 24 i 2& 31 33 35 33 40 42 44 46 147 47 149 49 76 57 13 14 ^6_ 18 1 1? 22 1 24 29 32 34 37 1 3s 41 43 <5 1 46 47 4S 49 73 56 1 12 14 « 16 17 1 n 1 1 23 28 31 33 36 38 40 42 ti. 1 45 46 47 47 69 55 i ' 13 Il5 le 21 1 23 27 30 32 35 1 37 39 41 1 43 1 45 I 46 I47 47 €6 54 11 [^^ Il6 > 17 20 '22 2fa 29 32 1 34 1 37 35 40 1 '•'^ 1 44 1 45 |46 46 62 53 11 14 nm 16 19 1 :i 25 ' 2" 3] 33 ' 36 36 40 1 42 1 43 t 45 46 46 58 52 1 10 1 13 !15 1 16 IS 1 20 24 1 27 30 1 32 1 35 37 39 1 41 1 42 ! 44 45 45 54 51 1 10 \l2 rrr Il4 1 in 17 1 19 22 1 2 6 1 29 1 31 1 34 36 38 1 40 |42 44 I45 45 50 SO f 9 I 11 il2 !l3 14 r 13 1 24 2ft t 30 I 35 37 • 39 1 "^l 43 I44 44 46 49 f-T1 10 I 11 il2 13 15 1 17 ' 20 t '1 t 27 ! 29 ' 32 ' 34 36 1 3=' t 40 1 42 I43 43 42 4S 8 10 i 11 '12 13 15 1 16 i? , 22 ! 26 1 28 I 3]_ • 33 --' ; 37 ! 39 1 41 |42 43 33 4? 7 9 i 10 '11 12 1 4 ' 16 1 18 ' 21 1 24 1^^ 1 29 1 32 34 ' 36 13S ' 40 '41 42 35 46 7 1 9 1 10 ill 1 2 1 3 1 15 ' 1? 1 20 t 23 1 25 1 28 1 30 33 ' 35 : 37 • 39 140 41 31 45 6 1 3 1 9 110 11 i_3 ' 16 1 19 ' 22 12! 2 c ! 2 'J 32 t 1 * t 35 1 38 139 40 27 44 6 1 7 '819 10 1 13 ! 13 ' 18 1 "1 22 1 3C : 33 37 138 39 24 43 5 1 8 9 10 11 i 13 • 14 1 16 ! 15 |20 |23 26 .29 1 32 |34 35 |37 38 21 42 6 7 1 S 11 i 12 ! 13 ll5 1 17 19 1 -> '. d. t 25 |27 i '33 34 136 37 18 41 1 4 1 6 7 1 S 12 ' 11 1^ 1 14 1 17 IS |il 1 23 ' 26 1 29 !32 33 36 16 40 4 Ui 6 7 3 t 9 il21 14 1 16 >17 \ 19 12'; * 27 |30 ! 32 134 35 14 39 3 t 4 1 5 6 7 1 6 110 ill 1 13 1 1 1^ ' 20 ' 22 i 26 129 1 30 |32 33 12 38 3 1 5 I 67 t 8 1 9 10 i 12 14 114 ( 17 1 15 ! 20 1 24 IS31 10 37 2 i 3 1 4 1 5 6 1 7 1 fi 111 ' 13 |13 ; ]5 1 > 22 25 28 8 36 2 3 3 1 4 6 1 7 1 7 T 9iii1 12 1 12 1 14 ( 15 !!' t 21 123 126 27 7 35 2 1 2 3 I 4 1 1 6 1 ^ i 8 110 1 11 111 13 ! 14 |19 (20 22 |24 11 6 34 2 i 2 2 1 3 4 1 5 i 6 1 9 111 13 i 14 ! 15 ! 1^ 117 19 |21 ! 23 Intermediate scores should be placed ir. square ixinediately above.

PAGE 42

APPENDIX B TABLE FOR CONVERSION TO T-SCORES (McCALL)

PAGE 43

36 APPENDIX B TABLE ran CO><'VERSIOK TO 7SCORES (HirCMJ.) Wise Wise Wise TWise SIT V p FS SCORE SUBTEST rrr; 90+ 19+ 167-168+ 89 165-1 66 150+ 155-156+ 155+ 66 163-164 CiQ Oft 143-149 15 3-154 154 87 i cj1-1c 146-147 lSl-152 153 feo 16 159-160 CO O C 145 15C 152 85 84 157-153 155-156 144 143 149 14S 151 150 83 155-154 141-142 146-147 148-149 82 17 1 C 1 1 c •) 1^ 140 145 146-147 81 14 5-150 CO 01 139 143-144 145 60 147-14 8 OQ Q 138 142 143-144 79 145-146 0 137 141 142 78 16 14 3-144 OQ 7 135-135 139-140 140-141 77 141-142 134 138 139 76 139-140 132-133 136-137 137-138 75 138 131 135 136 74 15 137 y y • * 130 13 3-134 134-135 73 136 99 12S-129 132 133 72 135 00 c r 0 . D 127 131 l'i2 71 133 93* 2 125 129-] 30 130-131 70 132 9S 125 123 128-129 69 14 130-131 97 124 127 127 63 129 C. ' A 122-123 125-126 125-126 67 128 SS 121 124 124 66 126-127 cc * ~> 120 122-123 12 3 65 124-] 25 93 119 121 122 64 13 122-123 92 118 120 120-121 63 121 90 116-117 118-119 119 62 119-120 £9 115 117 118 61 117-118 QC 00 114 115-116 116-117 60 116 C / 113 114 115 59 12 114-1 15 00 0£ 112 113 113-114 58 112-113 TCI 110-111 111-112 112 57 111 •7C /O 109 110 110-111 56 109—110 / J 107-108 108-109 108-lOS 55 108 69 106 107 107 54 11 106-107 66 104-105 105-1C6 1C5-106 53 104-105 62 102-103 1C3-1C4 103-104 C ? 102-103 58 101 101-102 101-102 51 101 54 100 ICO 100 50 10 100 50 98-99 9S-99 49 98—99 46 97 95-97 95-57 4% _ c— ^ / 42 95-96 94-?'5 94-95 47 94-95 33 94 93 93 46 93 35 93 92 92 45 9 91-92 31 92 91 90-91 44 90 27 90-91 89-90 66-8? 43 69 24 es-89 87-S3 86-?7 42 £6-87 21 87 55 85 41 £5 IS 86 65 84 40 3 £3-84 16 85 84 83 39 S2 14 84 82-83 82 33 cO-61 12 82-63 80-21 81 37 7S--'9 10 81 79 79-SO 36 77 3 80 76 78 35 7 76 7 79 77 76-77 34 74-75 6

PAGE 44

! APPENDIX C i SCALE FOR RATING THE CHILD AS A LEARNER

PAGE 45

38 APPENDIX C SCALE FOR RATING THE CHILD AS A LEARNER (adapted from Renzulli & Hartman, 1971) Name Date School Grade Age Years Months Teacher or person completing this form How long have you known this child? Please read each statement carefully and place an X in the appropriate place according to the following scale. (Also, underline the segments of any items which are especially appliceible) . 1. If you have seldom or never observed this characteristic 2. If you have observed this characteristic occasionally 3. If you have observed this characteristic to a considerable degree 4. If you have observed this characteristic almost all of the time . Please use the back of this sheet for any comments. 12 3 4 1. Has unusually advanced vocabulary for age or grade level; uses terms in a meaningful way; has verbal behavior characterized by "richness" of expression, elaboration, and fluency. 2. Has rapid insight into cause-effect relationships; tries to discover the how and why of things; asks many provocative questions (as distinct from informational or factual questions) ; wants to know what makes things (or people) "tick." 3. Is a keen and alert observer; usually "sees more" or "gets more" out of a story, film, etc., than others. 4. Becomes absorbed and truly involved in certain topics or problems; is persistent in seeking task completion. (It is sometimes difficult to get him to move on to another topic.)

PAGE 46

39 5. Prefers to work independently; requires little direction from teachers. ^ 6. Often is self assertive (sometimes even aggressive) ; stvjbborn in his beliefs. . , , 7. Displays a great deal of curiosity about many things; is constantly asking questions about anything and everything. 8. Is uninhibited in expressions of opinion; is sometimes radical and spirited in disagreement; is tenacious. 9. Criticizes constructively; is unwilling to accept authoritarian pronouncements without critical examination. 10. Seems to be well liked by his classmates. 11. Can express himself well, has good verbal facility and is usually well understood. 12. Tends to dominate others when they are around; generally directs the activity in which he is involved.

PAGE 47

APPENDIX D , / ' RAW DATA .J.

PAGE 48

41 APPENDIX D RAVJ DATA (Excluding VJISC Siabtest Scores and PM Set Scores) SubAge-Yr. PM SIT WISC-V WISC-P WISC-FS jects Sex Grade & Mo. T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score 1 M 4 8-9 64 2 F 5 9-10 75 3 P 3 9-3 53 4 M 5 10-2 81 5 H 2 7-4 71 6 M 4 9-5 67 7 M 4 9-4 71 8 P 4 10-2 61 9 M 2 7-7 65 10 M 1 7-3 75 11 M 1 6-7 50 12 F 2 7-3 90 13 P 2 6-9 79 14 H 4 10-2 58 15 M 3 8-2 60 16 P 5 9-10 65 17 M 4 9-7 90 18 F 2 7-11 68 19 M 3 8-3 83 20 F 5 10-5 58 21 M 1 6-5 57 22 M 2 7-8 53 23 F 2 7-10 50 24 P 4 9-6 72 25 M 4 9-4 61 26 F 5 10-2 61 27 M 8 13-4 46 28 F 2 7-6 84 29 M 5 10-0 55 30 F 4 9-6 64 31 .K . 5-8 56 32 M 7 12-5 69 33 M 3 8-1 64 34 M 4 8-11 66 35 M 3 8-2 59 36 M 4 10-2 90 37 F 2 7-1 53 38 F 3 7-8 46 39 M 3 9-3 81 78 69 56 63 77 67 72 70 76 58 60 59 85 75 71 73 77 59 61 60 75 63 72 69 73 72 51 60 78 77 61 69 72 67 48 57 81 64 71 69 73 56 65 to 80 75 76 77 69 72 70 71 68 61 56 58 81 67 57 63 89 79 65 72 90 83 65 73 77 56 59 57 68 63 70 67 79 62 51 56 73 63 64 63 84 64 49 56 70 55 54 55 70 82 61 72 71 59 54 56 79 75 57 67 77 69 67 «» 84 71 62 67 73 69 64 67 75 72 62 65 76 61 52 96 80 73 59 67 84 70 75 73 75 66 70 69 76 67 66 67 78 63 66 65 78 63 56 59 65 70 51 60 82 66 72 70

PAGE 49

42 RAW DATA Continued ;ubAge-Yr . PM SIT WISC-V WISC-P wisc-f; lects Sex Grade S Mo. T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Scon 40 M 3 8-0 63 80 73 61 67 41 F 5 10-5 78 78 66 75 71 42 F 4 9-0 58 75 67 51 58 43 M 4 9-1 59 84 62 52 57 44. M 2 7-8 , 74 87 69 71 71 45 F 5 10-3 64 72 70 70 70 46 F 2 7-6 58 71 56 61 o» 47 F K 6-2 63 76 68 52 S9 48 ip 4 9-10 72 79 73 70 72 49 M 4 9-2 87 76 67 68 50 M 3 8-5 90 80 73 61 67 51 M 5 10-0 67 70 80 57 69 52 M 4 9-5 72 71 66 62 64 53 M 2 7-5 79 70 56 46 51 54 M 7 11-9 61 89 90 69 83 55 F 4 9-6 60 85 62 61 61 56 F 4 9-9 90 77 67 53 60 57 M 1 6-6 47 71 69 47 57 58 H 4 9-6 82 84 63 58 60 59 F 2 7-11 90 84 77 57 68 60 F 3 8-6 84 81 65 69 67 61 M 1 6-3 87 90 77 82 80 62 H 3 8-10 81 74 75 69 72 63 M 8 13-7 70 77 61 55 58 64 M 2 7-4 74 83 81 75 78 65 F 1 6-2 71 90 67 67 67 66 M 3 8-10 69 67 54 64 59 67 M 1 7-8 60 64 62 64 . 63 68 M 4 9-11 59 69 72 77 75 69 H 1 6-11 90 79 74 73 74 70 F 2 7-2 54 76 64 53 58 71 M 5 10-10 85 76 66 64 65 72 F 3 8-8 75 61 68 57 63 73 F 2 8-2 78 77 69 64 67 74 F 2 6-0 59 83 80 64 72 75 M 2 7-1 81 72 62 59 61 76 F 2 7-3 82 76 81 67 74 77 M 4 9-4 67 80 77 49 62 78 F 5 10-2 69 69 57 68 63 79 F 5 10-6 65 71 69 69 69 80 M 3 7-9 86 90 72 79 75 81 M 4 9-6 90 73 63 64 64 82 M 2 7-4 72 74 67 65 67 83 F 5 10-0 87 75 68 60 64 84 M 1 5-11 68 71 56 52 54 85 M 2 7-3 79 76 67 57 63 86 H 1 6-11 73 76 72 57 65 87 F 3 8-4 67 74 55 61 58 88 F 3 8-4 61 76 52 49 50

PAGE 50

43 RAW DATA Continued SiabAge-Yr . Pli b J. i WXoC— V WXoL-— jects Sex Grade & Mo . T-Score i— bcore i — bcojre 89 F 3 a A 8-4 OD 0 o / / ^ A bu Db D 0 90 M D y-o / 0 bs b^ DO OD 91 F 2 /-I OA ou 7ri / u D J OX 92 M 4 9-8 ^ yi d4 bo tt7 D / b J OU 93 F 2 7-1 by by C7 b / bD D / 94 F 5 lQ-1 /4 0 T bi b2 ox 95 M 4 9-8 dU OA /(J bU CO D2 00 96 M 5 10-9 ^ A 60 o 0 / 2 b / b J 97 M 1 o-b DO OQ /y bb bo D / 98 F 2 o n 1-3 0 1 OA /U bD 00 0* 99 F 2 o rv /-O 0 0 b4 D4 ^0 37 100 4 Q O y-2 DD b4 £^1 bl c n Dl cc DD 10 i F in 11 lU— 11 0^ /4 bb AA bU AT r 2 c 1 r\ b— lU / / Q A yu Q A yu AO by 01 lU J r 1 t;_l 1 3-11 TQ / y (;i bx 71 / X 0 / lUfl r Q o 14— J t) / QA OU 04 DD lUo r b 11 in 11— lU 0 / QO 0 / 77 / / 7A /O 7*7 lub w A fi Q — "7 y— / 0 / 7 0 bU cc DD Do 1 m xu / r 0 £. (;-i 1 D J / 3 D4 04 o** lUo M A Q — Q y — o 00 o
PAGE 51

44 RAW DATA Continued bUD~ /\y tJ"" 1 XT • PM SIT WISC-V WISC-P WISCjects or rlO > T— '^core T-Sco J. J / M W X O XX RO 75 34 53 X Jo TP £ X 0 xu 7"^ 53 57 55 1 OQ X J? Q — 7 Or* 79 / ^ fin 50 55 ±4U £ /. R(^ 65 75 J.4X Pa 5 O X X R3 77 51 64 £ ft7 o / 7R / o 7"^ 70 73 14 J TUI Cl A ft ox 76 83 M 7— 7n 68 66 M P O X J / 61 ox 7T 57 65 1 Aft M X ©"XX 1 J R1 OX 70 I? £ ft— Q / 3 fi7 60 M 72 72 72 58 65 M •3 ft-1 1 O XX 7? 68 53 60 r /I ft— 1 1 O XX 7ft / o 7fi 79 67 £ •a 7 X fid 7Q 79 72 152 M 3 7-9 84 82 80 53 67 M Q-1 n ^ J. 65 R2 11 57 67 154 M •J u o 85 55 71 155 M 3 8-4 80 84 67 48 57 156 M 2 7-9 86 70 65 72 70 157 M 4 9-7 87 70 72 72 72 158 M 2 8-0 77 67 57 63 159 M 3 8-5 62 80 74 52 63 160 M 3 9-1 7 X 67 78 67 61 UX 65 161 M •J x\^ ^ 71 7R 71 / X 67 162 £ 7-Q 7Q 71 / X 71 / X 16"? M Q-D 6Q (^R DO 7? DO 7n / o 7A fln ou 77 / / ft9 7n / u £ o D XU DO 79 7R / O c;9 DZ DD M 1*1 7 XX 7fi ft! OX DD D4 xo / M o ^ R7 o / oy ftft DO ftQ by xoo M o O— D on DD 7A t;7 ftft bb X07 M fl xo J . • . IM . , R9 ftQ Do A7 C7 D / I7n X / Lf £ 7— n 9a HI OX RA 04 77 / / PI ox X /x A y o C£ 30 on oU C 7 4 / D^ X / ^ M J o ^ 7 9 ft D J 3Z >;p Do 1 7"? X / o TP £ 1 X fi — Q o— y / / 7ft ftT ft"? DO ft^ bo 1 74 X / 4 M A Q— Q OA TV OJ 77 / / ft C 77 1 7R X / ^ M D— 7Q /y bo bU b J 1 7fi X / o TP £ C D XU— XX Dy / / DD D4 177 M K 5-6 55 90 78 61 70 178 M 2 7-7 68 71 67 54 60 179 F 5 10-2 63 72 69 66 68 180 M 4 9-3 62 80 64 61 63 181 F K 5-7 59 80 59 62 60 182 M 2 7-2 59 80 73 55 64 183 M 3 8-1 84 79 82 68 75 184 M 4 9-6 75 76 61 58 59

PAGE 52

45 RAW DATA Continued Age-Yr . PM SIT WISC-V WISC-P WISC-E j Gets OX. Cl^c; & Mo . T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Score T-Scor 1 PR r A ** 9-5 60 74 72 61 67 M 10-2 63 67 57 61 59 1 R7 xo / r 1 X 7-2 90 79 75 63 69 1 Rfi xoo F 1 6-8 51 75 62 71 67 r K 10-11 61 77 60 60 60 M 3 8-8 75 78 67 64 67 IQl M 5 10-3 } 74 55 48 52 X7^ 2 7-1 57 80 60 74 68 193 *k 7 A X M 5 10-3 65 86 72 53 62 r 76 68 67 68 223 M 3 8-8 65 72 67 66 67 224 F 4 9-2 54 74 64 61 63 225 M 3 8-1 6^ 66 64 60 62 226 F 1 6-9 79 81 67 70 69 227 M 5 10-11 65 73 55 52 53 228 M 8 14-3 70 64 61 70 66 229 M 4 9-0 67 72 57 69 63

PAGE 53

REFERENCES Barr, A, J. and Goodnight, J. H. User's guide to Statistical Analysis System-SAS . Raleigh, N.C. : Dept. of Statistics, North Carolina State University, 1972. Barratt, E. £. The relationship of the Progressive Matrices (1938) and the Columbia Mental Maturity Scale to the WISC. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1956, 20_, 294-297. Birkemeyer, F. The relationship between the Coloured Progressive Matrices and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Psychology in the Schoo ls, 1965, 2^, 278-280. Burke, H. R. Raven's Progressive Matrices: A review and critical evaluation. Journal of Genetic Psychology , 1958, 93_, 199-228. Burke, H. R. and Bingham, W. C. Raven's progressive matrices: more on construct validity. Journal of Psychology , 1969, 72_, 247-251. Burt, C. The factors of the mind . New York: Macmillan, 1941. Carlson, J. S. A note on the relationship between Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices Test and operational thought. Psychology in the Schools , 1973, 10, 211-214. Elley, W. B. and MacArthur, R. S. The Standard Progressive Matrices as a culture-reduced measure of general intellectual ability. Alberta Journal of Educational Research , 1962, 8^, 54-65. Estes, B. W., Curtin, M. E., DeBurger, R. A. and Denny, C. Relationships between 1960 Stanford-Binet, WISC, Raven, and Draw-A-Man. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1961, 25, 388-391. ^ Eysenck, H. J. The structure of human personality . New York: Wiley & Sons, 1953. • / Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. The identification of mentally gifted, "disadvantaged" students at the eighth grade level. The Journal of Negro Education , 1974, 43, 53-66. Fleming, J. M. Body image and learning of deaf and hearing boys . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1967, Foulds , G. A. and Raven, J. C. An experimental survey with Progressive Matrices (1347) . British Journal of Educational Psychology , 1950, 20, 104-110. 46

PAGE 54

47 Frierson, E. C. The gifted child with special learning disabilities. In J. Helrauth (Ed.), Learning Disorders , Volume 3. Seattle: Special Child Piablications , 1968, 359-370. Gallagher, J. J. (Ed.) Talent delayed Talent denied . The culturally different gifted child. A conference report. Reston, Virginia: Foundation for Exceptional Children, 1974. Gallagher, J. J. Teaching the gifted child (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1975. Gallagher, J. J. and Lucito, L. J. Intellectual patterns of gifted compared with average and retarded. Exceptional Children , 1961, 27, 479-482. Garrett, H. E. Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) for children and adults. Catholic School Journal , 1965, 65_, 84. Gowan, J. C. Development of the creative individual . Scin Diego: Robert R. Knapp, Piablisher, 1972. GoWan, J. C. and Demos, G. D. (Eds.) The guidance of exceptional children . New York: David McKay, 1965. Gowan, J. C. ajid Torrance, E. P. (Eds.) Educating the ablest . Itasca, 111. F. E. Peacock Publishers, 1971. Green, M. W. and Ewert, J. C. Normative data on Progressive Matrices (1947). Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1955, 19^, 139-142. Guilford, J. P. The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin , 1956, 53, 267-293. Higgins, C. ai.d Sivers, C. H. A comparison of Stanford-Binet and Colored Raven Progressive Matrices IQs for children with low socioeconomic status. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1958, 22^, 465-468. Hildreth, G. H. Introduction to the gifted . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Himelstein, P. Slosson Intelligence Test: A review. In O. K. Buros (Ed.), Seventh mental measurements yearbook . Highland Park, N. J. : Gryphon Press, 1972. ~~~~ Irvine, S. H. Towards a rationale for testing attainments and abilities in Africa. British Journal of Educational Psy chology, 1966, 36, 24-32. — Jastak, J. Problems of psychometric scatter analysis. Psychological Bulletin , 1949, 46, 177-197. Jordan, T. E. and Bennett, C. M. Item analysis of the Coloured Progressive Matrices (1947). Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1957, 21^, 222.

PAGE 55

48 Krichev, A. A revision that really is the WISC-R: Review. Psychology in the Schools , 1975, rz, 126-128. Lucito, L. J. Gifted children. In L. M. Dunn (Ed.) Exceptional children in the schools . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965. MacArthur, R. S. and Elley, W. B. The reduction of socioeconomic bias in intelligence testing. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 1963, 33^, 107-119. . ; Machen, L. H. A validity and reliability study of the Slosson Intelligence Test (SIT) with an atypical population gifted children (Doctoral dissertation, The Catholic University of .America, 1972) . Dissertation Abstracts International , 1972 (University Microfilms No. 72-32, 073) . Marland, S. P. Our gifted and talented children a priceless national resource. Intellect , 1972(b), 101, 16-19. Martin, A. W. and Wiechers , J. E. Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1954, 18_, 143-144. Meeker, M. N. The structure of intellect . Colianbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969. . Meili, R. Lehrbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik. Bern: Huber, 1965. Cited in J. S. Carlson, A note on the relationship between Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices Test and operational thought. Psychology in the Schools , 1973, 10_, 211-214. Orme, J. E. Coloured Progressive Matrices as a measure. British Journal of Medical Psychology , 1961, 3£, 291-2. Onne, J. E. Hypothetically true noms for the Progressive Matrices Test. HuiTian Development , 1966, 9_, 222-230. Orme, J. E. A comment on estimating WAIS IQ from Progressive Matrices scores. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 1968, 2j[, 94-95. Pearson, K. Philosophical Society Transactions . London: Philosophical Society, 1896, 187A, 253-318. Pegnato, C. W. and Birch, J. W. Locating gifted children in junior high schools A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children , 1959, 25 , 300-304. Radford, J, Verbalization effects in a nonverbal intelligence test. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 1366, 36^, 33-38. Raven, J. C. Standardization of Progressive Matrices, 1938. British Journal of Medical Psychology , 1941, 19, 137-150.

PAGE 56

49 Raven, J. C. Standard Progressive Matrices . Sets A, B, C, D, and E. London: H. K, Lev/is & Company Ltd. , 1958. Raven, J. C. Guide to the Standard Progressive Matrices . London: H. K. Lewis & Company Ltd., 1960. Raven, J. C. Guide to using the Coloured Progressive Matrices . London: H. K. Lewis & Company Ltd., 1965. Raven, J. C. Advanced Progressive Matrices : Sets I and II. Plan and use of the scale. London: H. K. Lewis & Company Ltd., 1973. Renzulli, J. J. and Hartman, R. K. Scale for rating behavioral characteristics of superior students. Exceptional Children , 1971, 38 , 243-248. Ki.moldi, H. J. A. A note on Raven's Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 1948, 8, 347-352. Robinson, H. B. and Robinson, N. M. The mentally retarded child: A psychological approach . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Ross, C. C. and Stanley, J. C. Measurement in today's schools . New York Prentice-Hall, 1954. Sato, I. S. The culturally different gifted child the dawning of his day? Exceptional Children , 1974, 40, 572-576. Sattler, J. M. Assessment of children's intelligence . Philadelphia: W. B. Samders Co., 1974. Seashore, H. G. Differences between verbal and performance IQs on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1951, 15, 62-67. Slosson, R. L. Slosson Intelligence Test for Children and Adults . East Aurora, N.Y,: Slosson Educational Publications, 1964. Slosson, R. L. IQ Classification Chart and IQ Percentile Chart . East Aurora, N.Y. : Slosson Educational Publications, 1963. Spearman, C. The abilities of man . New York: Macmillan, 1927. Sperrazzo, G. , and Wilkins, W. L. Further normative data on the Progressive Matrices. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1958, 22 , 35-42. Stoddard, G. D. The meaning of intelligence. New York: Macmillan, 1943. Terman, L. M. Intelligence and its measurement: A symposixam. Journal of Educational Psvcholoqv. 1921. 12. 127-13 3.

PAGE 57

50 Thompson, J. M. and Finley, C. J. A further comparison of the intellectual patterns of gifted and mentally retarded children. Exceptional Children , 1962, 28, 379-381. Thorndike, E. L. Human nature and the social order . N.Y.: Macmillan, 1940, 67-58. Thurstone, L. L. Primary mental abilities . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938. Torrance, E. P. Identifying the creatively gifted among economically eUid culturally disadvantaged children. Gifted Child Quarterly , 1964, 8, 171-176. , Torrance, E. P. Assessment of disadvantaged minority group children. , The School Psychology Digest , 1973, 2_, 3-10. -. , . ' Tuddenham, R. D., Davis, L. , Davison, L. , and Schindler, R. An experimental group version for school children of the Progressive Matrices. Journal of Consulting Psychology , 1958, 22^, 30. Vernon, P. E. The structure of human abilities . London: Methuen, 1950. Vernon, P. E. Environmental handicaps and intellectual development: Part II. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 1965a, 35 , 117-126. Vernon, P. E. Ability factors and environmental influences. American Psychologist , 1965b, 20, 723-733. Wechsler, D. The measurement of adult intelligence . Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1941. Wechsler, D. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children . New York: Psychological Corp., 1949. Wechsler, D. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Revised . Nev; York: Psychological Corp., 1974. Witty, P. Some considerations in the education of gifted children. Educational Administration and Supervision , 1940, 26 , 512-521. Witty, P. The gifted child in 1967. The Gifted Child Quarterly , 1967, 11, 255-262.

PAGE 58

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Genevieve Downes Webber was born June 25, 1916 in Magnolia, Ohio. She attended schools in Magnolia, and received the Bachelor of Science degree in Education from the Ohio State University in 1937. A Master of Arts in Teaching degree was earned and conferred at Rollins College, in VJinter Park, Florida in 1964. Three years of secondary teaching in Cortland, Ohio was followed by a period of child rearing and related community activities. These included becoming a co-founder of the Garden City (New York) Cooperative Nursery School. Her return, in 1964, to teaching, in gifted education, led to further study, culminating in a doctoral program in special education at the University of Florida. Since 1972 she has also taught gifted child classes in the Marion County, Florida public schools. Membership in professional organizations include The Association for the Gifted, the Florida Association for the Gifted, the Council for Exceptional Children, the National Education Association, Fi Lambda Theta Delta Kappa Gamma, and Kappa Delta Pi. ' , 51

PAGE 59

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Myroif a. Cunninc Professor Emeritus, Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Professor and Chairman of Special Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. twlfliam D. Wolk )lking Professor of Special E/3uqfetion I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Richard J. Anderson Professor o^f^sychology

PAGE 60

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August, 1975 . . : ../• Dean, College elf Edi^cation Dean, Graduate School