A GENERALIZABILITY THEORY STUDY OF A SURVEY INSTRUMENT TO IDENTIFY GIFTED AND TALENTED STUDENTS: THE LOOKING FOR TRAITS, ATTRIBUTES, AND BEHAVIORS STUDENT REFERRAL FORM by CAROLYN BROWN CROPPER, B.S.C, M.A. A DISSERTATION IN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Submittecj to the Gracjuate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Approvecj Accepted December, 1996
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
A GENERALIZABILITY THEORY STUDY OF A SURVEY
INSTRUMENT TO IDENTIFY GIFTED AND TALENTED
STUDENTS: THE LOOKING FOR TRAITS, ATTRIBUTES,
AND BEHAVIORS STUDENT REFERRAL FORM
by
CAROLYN BROWN CROPPER, B.S.C, M.A.
A DISSERTATION
IN
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
Submittecj to the Gracjuate Faculty of Texas Tech University in
Greenslade, & Mllich, 1992). It is important for teachers to be a
part of the selection process because they have data to offer that is
not available to other members of the selection team. However, the
particular beliefs and attitudes of the teacher must be considered
(Pegnato & Birch, 1959), especially when the identification process
takes place at the elementary level (Jacobs, 1971).
87
Pegnato and Birch (1959) suggested that teachers most often
choose children like themselves as gifted. Whatever the teacher
values will be the criterion for selection. Often the quiet, well-
behaved, well-dressed child who gets good grades Is a prime target
for teacher selection. In their study, Pegnato and Birch found that
teachers Identified only 45% of the students in their classes who
were cognltively gifted, actually missing 55%. They suggested that
systematic bias may exist among teachers when attempting to
identify giftedness in students.
One way to help teachers know how to Identify the
characteristics of gifted learners Is to improve their accuracy in
selecting children who demonstrate these characteristics. Providing
teachers with Information about the common characteristics found
among gifted children would encourage them to look for those
characteristics they might otherwise miss (Borland, 1978; Gear
1978).
If teachers cannot recognize gifted characteristics in the
students in their classes, there may be waste of human potential.
88
Gear (1978) found that the effectiveness of teacher selection was
improved with a training program. The teachers participating in the
training program were twice as effective as were untrained
teachers. Teachers can improve their efficiency in selecting gifted
students when they are provided training to recognize gifted
behaviors in all groups of children. This Is especially important
when attempting to recognize the gifted abilities of children from
economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient
backgrounds. With training, the likelihood exists that gifted
children from underrespesented groups will also be better
recognized (Borland, 1978).
Parents As Raters
This study also found high Phi coefficients (Table 15) in
ratings by parents. This high Phi coefficient may be because parents
are aware of the behavior of their child and can provide Information
that is clearly Indicative of potential giftedness (Jacobs 1971).
89
The Phi coefficient findings in this study clearly Indicated that
parents as raters provided reliable data.
Limitations of the Study
The sample consisted of 127 students. Regular classroom
teachers and gifted and talented program teachers served as raters.
The sample size was considered adequate and the data provided an
accurate representation of the TABS results. The sample for this
study was limited to third grade students, thus limiting the results
outside this grade range. Generalizations to other groups should be
considered with caution.
Data for this study was collected from third grade teachers
across the school district, gifted and talented program teachers, and
parents. All raters had received eight hours of gifted and talented
training focusing on the characteristics of gifted and talented
children.
90
Directions for Future Research Using the TABS Form
The overall reliability of the TABS was examined in this study.
Existing research for the TABS does not exist. Additional studies
should be conducted to further examine the reliability of this
instrument and its usefulness in the identification of gifted
individuals.
The results obtained in this study suggested that reliability
may be Improved if Inter-rater reliability is established. Inter
rater reliability is essential if more than one Individual Is to be
Involved In the rating. Without inter-rater reliability, data are
invalid. Several hours (above those suggested to famllarize raters
with the characteristics of gifted behavior) should be allowed to
establish inter-rater reliability. One should expect that Initial data
set will have divergent ratings. As subsequent sets are rated,
agreement will increase. If long periods elapse between rating
sessions, it is necessary to reestablish Inter-rater reliability.
91
Implications
Information from this survey presents several directions for
the following related research. First, organize a follow-up of this
study to determine what changes were made in the school district
involved In this study to prepare their teachers and parents to meet
the needs of gifted students. Second, implement a survey of gifted
programs presently utilizing TABS to ascertain the extent of
training received by teachers and parents in order to identify gifted
characteristics in children. Third, implement a statewide survey of
gifted education programs to ascertain their methods of identifying
gifted students. Fourth, determine, from the statewide survey, If a
new identification instrument is needed.
New gifted Identification Information will contribute to those
individuals struggling to find effective ways to identify children
from economically disadvantaged and limited English proficiency
background for participation in programs for the gifted. Because
referrals by educators and those closely associated with children
are traditional first steps in identifying children for gifted program
92
participation, the knowledge they hold about giftedness and about
the Instrument being utilized may have a profound impact on referral
decisions.
93
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin 101. 213-232.
Au, M. L., & Punfrey, P. D. (1993). Parents' and teachers' expectations of children's attainments: Match or mismatch? British Journal of Special Education 20. 109-120.
Baldwin, A. Y. (1978). Curriculum and methods: What Is the difference? In A. Baldwin, G. Gear, & L. Luclto (Eds.), Educational planning for the gifted: Overcoming cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic barriers (pp. 37-49). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Baldwin, A. Y. (1980). The Baldwin Identification Matrix. Its development and use in programs for the gifted child. Philadelphia, PA: Paper presented at the Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children.
Barber, L W. & Barton, K. (1971) Useabllltv bv raters of the Barber Scales of Self-Regard for Preschool Children. Boston, MA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association.
Barkan, J. H., & Bernal E. M. (1991). Gifted education for bilingual and limited English proficient students. Gifted Child Ouarterlv. 22. 144-147.
94
Bermudez, A. B., & Rakow, S. J.. (1990). Analyzing teachers' perceptions of identification procedures for gifted and talented Hispanic limited English proficient students at-risk. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students. 7. 21-33.
Bernal, E. (1978). The identification of gifted Chicano children. In A. Baldwin, G.Gear, & L. Luclto (EDS.). Educational planning for the gifted. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Borland, J. (1978). Teacher identification of the gifted: A new look. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 2. 22-32.
Brennan, R. L (1983). Elements of generalizibilitv theory. Iowa City, lA: American College of Testing.
Brennan, R. L. (1992). An NOME Instructional module on generalizability theory. Instructional Theory In Educational Measurement. 27-34.
Brennan, R. L (1992). Elements of generalizability theory. Iowa City, lA: American College Testing Program.
Chambliss, C, & Melmed, M. (1990). Attitudinal and behavioral responses toward parent clientele of parent and nonparent child care providers. ERIC No. ED 320689.
Chen, X. (1993). Reliability coefficient and correlation ratio between the observed scores and latent trait. Acta Psychological Sinica. 25, 395-399.
Christensen, A., Phillips, S., Glascow, R. E., & Johnson, S. M. (1983). Parental characteristics and Interactional dysfunction in families with child behavior problems: A preliminary Investigation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 11. 153-166.
95
Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school (4th ed.). New York: Merrill.
Cornell, D. G. (1994). Low Incidence of behavior problems among elementary school students in gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 18. 4-19.
Crick, J. E., & Brennan, R. L (1983). Manual for GENOVA: A GENerallzed analysis Of VArlance system. (Number 43). Iowa City, lA: American College of Testing.
Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C, Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of measurements. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Damico, J. S. (1985). Clinical discourse analysis: A functional approach to language assessment. In C. Simen, Communication skills and classroom success: Assessment of language-learning disabled students, (pp. 165-204). San Diego, CA: College-Hill.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dearborn, D. C, & Simon, H. A. (1958). Selective perception: A note on the departmental identification of executives. Soclometry. 140-148.
de Bernard, A. E. (1985). Why Jose can't get into the gifted class: The bilingual child and standardized reading tests. Roeper Review. S, 80-82.
DeHaan, R. F., & Havighurst, R. J. (1961). Educating gifted children. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
96
Delcourt, M., Loyd, B., Cornell, D., Goldberg, M., & Bland, L. (1994). Evaluation of the effects of programming arrangements on student learning outcomes. (Research Monograph). The University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, Department of Education.
Delgado-Galtan, C, & Trueba, H. T. (1985). Ethnographic study of the participant structures in task completion: Reinterpretation of "handicaps" in Mexican children. Learning Disability Ouarterlv. 8, 67-75.
Eason, S. (1991). Why generalizability theory yields better results than classical test theory: A prier with concrete examples. In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances In educational research: Substantive finding methodical development (pp. 83-98). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
Eisenstade, T. H. (1994). Interparent agreement on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. Child and Family Behavior Therapy. 16. 21-27.
Epkins, C. C. (1993). A preliminary comparison of teacher ratings and child self-report depression, anxiety, and aggression in inpatient and elementary school samples. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 21. 649-661.
Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. (1990). On discovering the hidden treasure of gifted and talented black children. Roeper Review. 13. 27-32.
Ford, D. Y., & Harris, J. J. (1996). Recruiting and retaining diverse students In gifted education: Pitfalls and promises. Tempo 16. 8-12.
97
Forehand, R., Lautenschlager, G. J., Faust, J., & Grazlano, W. G. (1986). Parent perceptions and parent-child Interactions in clinic-referred children: A preliminary investigation of the effects of maternal depressive moods. Behavior Research and Therapy 24, 73-75.
Foster-Gaitskell, D., & Pratt, C. (1989). Comparison of parent and teacher ratings of adaptive behavior of children with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation. 94. 177-181.
Frasier, M. M. (1987). The identification of gifted black students: Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 10. 155-180.
Frasier, M. M. (1990a). An investigation of giftedness in economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient populations. Athens, GA: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented Proposal, The University of Georgia.
Frasier, M. M. (1990b). Identifying the gifted: Observation and rating scales. Athens, GA: The Torrance Center for Creative Studies, The University of Georgia.
Frasier, M. M. (1990c). Instruction manual: Using the Frasier talent assessment profile (F-TAP). Athens, GA: The University of Georgia.
Frasier, M. M. (1991). Response to Kitano: The sharing of giftedness between culturally diverse and non-diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 15. 20-30.
Frasier, M. M., & Passow, A. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for Identifying talent potential: Executive summary (Research Monograph 94112). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
98
Frierson, E. C. (1965). Upper and lower status gifted children: A study of differences. Exceptional Children. 32. 83-90.
Gallagher, J. J. (1994). Teaching the gifted child (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Gear, G. (1978). Effects of training on teachers' accuracy in the Identification of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly. 11. 90-97.
Gilbert, S. L. (1994). Parental and professional agreement In the assessment of children with disabilities: An examination. ERIC No. ED 378705.
Hambleton, R. K., & Powell, S. (1983). A framework for viewing the process of standard setting. Evaluation and the Health Professions. 6. 3-24.
Hanson, J. B. & Feldhusen, J. F. (1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 38, 115-121.
Hanson, J. B., & Linden, L. W. (1990). Selecting Instruments for identifying gifted and talented students. Roeper Review 13. 10-15.
Hicks, J. S. (1988). The five D'S reolication study. Syosset, NY: Paper presented at Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children.
Hoge, R. D. (1989). An examination of the giftedness construct. Canadian Journal of Education. 14. 6-17.
99
Houston, W. M., Raymond, M. R., & Svec, J. C. (1991). Adjustments for rater effects. Applied Psychological Measurement. 15. 409-421.
Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. M. (1993). Evaluation of gifted programs: Current practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 16. 190-200.
Jacobs, J. (1971). Effectiveness of teacher and parent identification of gifted children as a function of school level. Psychology in the Schools. 8. 140-142.
Johnson, S., & Bell, J. (1985). Evaluating and predicting survey efficiency using generalizability theory. Journal of Educational Measurement. 22. 107-119.
Kaplan, J. A. (1993). The co-parenting system: Longitudinal effects for kindergartners of differences between mothers' and fathers' parenting styles. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research In Child Development.
Keller, M. (1990). Holistic Identification of potentially gifted students: An alternative to the matrix. Instructional Leader, 12, 4-7.
Kitano, M. K., & Kirby, D. F. (1986). Gifted education: A comprehensive view. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Kranz, B., (1978). Multi-dimensional screening device for the identification of gifted/talented children. Grand Forks, ND: Bureau of Educational Research and Services, University of North Dakota.
100
Maker, C. J., & Schiever, S. W. (Eds.). (1989). Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Marsden, P., (1993). The reliability of network density and composition measures. Social Networks. 15. 399-421.
Milich, R., & Landau, S. (1988). Teacher ratings of inattentlon/overactlvity and aggression: Cross-validation with classroom observations. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 17, 92-97.
Newcorn, J. H., Halperin, J. M., Schwartz, S., Pascualvasa, D., Wolf, L., Schmeidler, J., & Sharma, V. (1994). Parent and teacher ratings of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms: Implications for case identification. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 86-91.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for the unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35. 450-456.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Pagano, R. R. (1990). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences. New York: West Publishing Company.
Passow, A. H., & Rudnitski, R. A. (1993). State Dolicles regarding education of the gifted as reflected in legislation and regulation (CRS93302). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.
101
Pegnato, W., & Birch, J. (1959). Locating gifted children In junior high school. Exceptional Children. 25. 300-304.
Pelham, W. E., Gnagy, E. M., Greenslade, K. E., & Mllich, R. (1992). Teacher ratings of DSM-lll-R symptoms for the disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 31. 210-218.
Pendarvis, E. D., Howley, A. A., & Howley, C. B. (1990). The abilities of gifted children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Perrone, P., & Male, R. (1981). The developmental education and guidance of talented learners. Rockville, MD: Aspen Publications.
Ramirez, M., & Castaneda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, blcognative development, and education. New York: Academic Press.
Renzulli, J. (1973). Talent potential in minority group students. Exceptional Children. 39. 437-444.
Renzulli, J., & Hartman, R. (1971. Scale for rating behavioral characteristics of superior students. Exceptional Children. 38. 243-248.
Renzulli, J. (1973). Talent potential in minority group students. Exceptional Children. 39. 437-444.
Rickard, K. M., Forehand, R., Wells, K. C, Griest, D., L, & McMahon, R. J., (1981). Factors in referral of children for behavioral treatment: A comparison of mothers of clinic-referred deviant, clinic-referred nondeviant and noncllnic children. Behavior Research and Therapy 19. 201-205.
102
Russikoff, K. A. (1994). Hidden expectations: Faculty perceptions of SLA and ESL writing competence. Baltimore, MD: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Shade, B. J. (1991). African American patterns of cognition. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Black Psychology (pp. 231-247). Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry.
Shaklee, B. D., Barbour, N., Ambrose, R., Rohrer, J., Whitmore, J. R., & Viechnickl, K. J. (1994). Early assessment for exceptional potential In young minority and/or economically disadvantaged students. In C .M. Callahan, C. A. Tomlinson, & P. M. Pizzat (Eds.), Contexts for promise: Noteworthy practices and innovations in the Identification of gifted student (pp. 22-42). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Shavelson, R .J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
SIgafoos, J., & Pennell, D. (1995). Parent and teacher assessment of receptive and expressive language In preschool children with developmental disabilities. Education and Training In Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. 18. 329-35.
Stanley, J. C. (1976)Tests better finder of great math talent than teacher are. American Psychologist. 31. 313-314.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Bevond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stone, W., & Rosenbaum, J. L. (1988). A comparison of teacher and parent views of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 18. 403-414.
103
Taylor, 0. L. (1990). Cross-cultural communication: An essential dimension of effective education. Washington, DC: The Mid-Atlantic Equity Center.
Thompson, B. (1989). Why generalizability coefficients are an essential aspect of reliable assessment. Houston, TX: Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association.
Tonemah, S. A., & Brittan, M. A. (1985). American Indian gifted and talented assessment model. Norman, OK: American Indian Research and Development.
Torrance, E. P. (1969). Creative positives of disadvantaged children and youth. Gifted Child Quarterly. 13. 71-81.
Treffinger, D., & Renzulli, J. S. (1986). Giftedness as a potential for creative productivity: Transcending IQ scores. Roeper Review. 8, 150-154.
Wall, S. M., & Paradise, L. V. (1981). A comparison of parent and teacher reports of selected adaptive behaviors of children. Journal of School Psychology. 19. 73-77.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1988), Mothers' and fathers' perceptions of child deviance: Roles of parent and child behaviors and parent adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology 56. 909-915.
Weigle, S. C. (1994). Using FACETS to model rater training effects. Washington, D.C. Paper presented at the Language Testing Research Colloquium.
104
Williams, B. L, & Hartlage, L C. (1988). Communication and retention of psychoeducatlonal diagnostic Information in parent conferences. Atlanta, GA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association.
Wright, D., & Plersel, W. (1992). Components of variance In behavior ratings from parents and teachers. Journal of Psychoeducatlonal Assessment. 10. 310-318.
Zappia, I. A. (1989). Identification of gifted Hispanic students: A multidimensional view. In C.J. Maker & S.W. Schiever. (Eds.), Critical Issues In gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
105
APPENDIX A
THE LOOKING FOR TRAITS, ATTRIBUTES AND BEHAVIORS
STUDENT REFERRAL FORM
106
The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented at The University of Georgia
Looking for Traits, Attributes and Behaviors Student Referral Form
Name of Student: School: Grade:
Gender M Birthdate:
Student Ethnicity: American Indian (Circle One) 1
Primary Language Spoken at Home: Name of Person Completing Form:
Asian/Pacific ISL Black Hispanic White 2 3 4 5
(Circle One) Classroom Teacher PT Teacher Parent Other (specify)
Directions: Please rate the student being referred for assessment In each of the following areas. Circle the acprotiriate number and provide specific example(s) or comment(s) for each trait. attriDute or Oehavior. Specific examples must be given for a rating of 1 or 5. The anacned TAB'S Observation Sheet may assist you in completing this form.
Communication •unusual ability to communicate (vertaally, nonverbally,
physically, artistically, symbolically) •uses particularly apt examples, illustrations, or elaborations
In this area, the student is:
Strong Average Weak
1
Motivation •persistent in pursuing/completing self-selected tasks
(may be culturally influenced): evident in school or non-school type activities
•enthusiastic learner •has aspirations to be somebody, do something
In this area, the student is:
Strong Average Weak
107
Interests •unusual or advanced interests tn a topic or activity *self-5tarier •pursues an activity unceasingly •t)eyond the group
In this area the student is:
Strong Average Weax
Problem solving ability •unusual ability to devise or adapt a systematic
strategy for solving problems and to change the strategy If it is not working
•creates new designs •inventor/innovator
In this area, the student is:
Strong Average Weak
5 4 2 1
Specific exampie(s)
Memory •already knows •1-2 repetitions for mastery •has a wealth of information about
school or non-school topics •pays anention to details •manipulates information
In this area, the student is:
Strong Average Weak
5 4 2 1
Specific example(s)
108
Humor •keen sense of humor that may be gentle or hostile *<arge accumulation about emotions •heightened capacity for seeing unusual relationships 'unusual emotional depth -openness to expenences •heightened sensory awareness
In this area, the student Is:
Strong Average Weak
Specific exampie(s)
Inquiry •asks unusual questions for age •plays around with ideas •extensive exploratory behaviors directed
toward eliciting information about matenals. devices or situations
In this area, the student is:
Strong Average Weak
4
Specific example(s)
Insight •has exceptional ability to draw inferences •appears to be a good guesser •is keenly observant •integrates ideas and disciplines
In this area, the student is:
Strong Average Weak
Specific exampie(s)
109
Interests •unusual or advanced interests in a topic or activity •self-starter •pursues an activity unceasingly •beyond the group
In this area, the student is:
Strong Average Weak
Problem solving ability •unusual ability to devise or adapt a systematic
strategy for solving problems and to change the strategy if it is not working
•creates new designs •inventor/innovator
In this area, the student is:
Strong Average Weak
5 4 2 1
Specific exampie(s)
Memory •already knows •1-2 repetitions for mastery •has a wealth of information about
school or non-school topics •pays anention to details •manipulates information
In this area, the student is:
Strong Average Weak
5 4 2 1
Specific example(s)
110
APPENDIX B
ANOVA SUMMARY TABLES AND
GENERALIZABILITY CALCULATIONS FOR ALL RATINGS
111
Table 17. ANOVA Summary Table for Combineci Ratings, Total Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
127 2 9
252 1134
18
2268
3809
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
70993.16667 70463.07795 70474.40682
71515.70000 71389.66667 70504.74803
72481.00000
70446.90000
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
546.26667 16.17795 27.50682
506.35538 368.99318
14.16325
554.63675
2034.10000
Mean Squares
4.33545 8.08896 3.05631
2.00935 .32539 .78685
.24455
112
Table 18. Variance Components for Combined Ratings: Classroom Teachers, Gifted and Talented
Program Teachers, and Parents, Total Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Degrees of
Freedom
127 2 9
252 1134
18
2268
Model Variance Components
Using Using EMs Standard Algorithm Equations Error
.0748420
.0043601
.0057444
.1764798
.0269473
.0042701
.2445488
.0748420
.0043601
.0057444
.1764798
.0269473
.0042701
.2445488
.0190240
.0045102
.0034825
.0178448 .0051543 .0019601
.0072588
113
Table 19. ANOVA Summary Table for Combined Ratings. Anglo Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
72 2 9
144 648
18
1296
2189
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
41799.10000 41503.98493 41516.78995
42069.10000 42028.33333 41535.82192
42617.00000
41496.84429
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
302.25571 7.14064
19.94566
262.85936 209.28767
11.89132
306.77534
1120.1557
Mean Squares
4.19800 3.57032 2.21618
1.82541 .32297 .66063
.23671
114
Table 20. Variance Components for Combined Ratings: Classroom Teachers, Gifted and Talented Program
Teachers, and Parents, Anglo Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Ri
SRI
Degrees of
Freedom
72 2
9
144 648
18
1296
Model Variance Components
Using Algorithm
.0762106
.0018096
.0067091
.1588703
.0287551
.0058071
.2367094
Using EMs Equations
.0762106
.0018096
.0067091
.1588703
.0287551
.0058071
.2367094
Standard Error
.0240914
.0034825
.0044201
.0213850
.0067272
.0028646
.0092917
115
Table 21. ANOVA Summary Table for Combined Ratings, Asian Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
4 2 9
8 36 18
72
149
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
2926.46667 2929.48000 2923.60000
2941.20000 2942.66667 2936.80000
2980.00000
2921.62667
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
4.84000 7.85333 1.97333
6.88000 14.22667
5.34667
17.25333
58.37333
Mean Squares
1.21000 3.92667
.21926
.86000 .39519 .29704
.23963
116
Table 22. Generalizability Calculations for Combined Ratings, Asian Sample.
Variance Components In Terms of G-study Universe (of Admissible Observations) Sizes
Variance
Effect
S R 1 SR SI Rl SRI
Components Variance
Components for Single Observation
.00
.06
.00
.06
.03
.01
.24
Finite Universe
Corrections
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
D-study Sampling
Frequencies
1 3
10 3
10 30 30
For Mean Scores
Estimates
.00 .02 .00 .02 .00 .00 .01
Standard Errors
.02
.02 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00
1 17
Table 23. ANOVA Summary Table for Combined Ratings, African-American Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
16 2 9
32 144
18
288
309
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
9826.23333 9781.75882 9782.84314
9903.10000 9876.33333 9794.52941
10033.00000
9777.03725
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
49.19608 4.72157 5.80588
72.14510 44.29412
6.96471
72.83529
255.96275
Mean Squares
3.07475 2.36078
.64510
2.25433 .30760 .38693
.25290
118
Table 24. Variance Components for Combined Ratings Classroom Teachers, Gifted and Talented Program Teachers, and Parents, African-American Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Degrees of
Freedom
16 2 9
32 144
18
288
Using Algorithm
.0255174 -.0001634 .0039897
.2001634
.0182326
.0078840
.2529003
Model Variance
Using EMs Equations
.0255174 -.0001634 .0039897
.2001634
.0182326
.0078840
.2529003
Components
Standard Error
.0387469 .0103587 .0059594
.0547208 .0138933 .0073028
.0210022
119
Table 25. ANOVA Summary Table for Combined Ratings, Hispanic Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
31 2 9
62 279
18
558
959
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
16441.36667 16308.52813 16300.36458
16602.30000 16542.33333 16320.09375
16851.00000
16293.77604
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
147.59062 14.75208
6.58854
146.18125 94.37813
4.97708
142.75625
557.22396
Mean Squares
4.76099 7.37604
.73206
2.35776 .33827 .27650
.25584
120
Table 26. Variance Components for Combined Ratings: Classroom Teachers, Gifted and Talented Program
Teachers, and Parents, Hispanic Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Degrees of
Freedom
31 2 9
62 279
18
558
Using Algorithm
.0773596
.0156175
.0038866
.2101927
.0274791
.0006459
.2558356
Model Variance
Using EMs Equations
.0773596
.0156175
.0038866
.2101927
.0274791
.0006459
.2558356
Components
Standard Error
.0414799
.0163532
.0033935
.0417078 .0107919 .0027739
.0152891
121
Table 27. ANOVA Summary Table for Teacher Ratings, Total Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
125 1 9
125 1125
9
1125
2519
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
46657.90000 46163.30159 46157.18254
46906.60000 46987.00000 46176.33333
47498.00000
46148.67302
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
509.22698 14.62857
8.50952
234.07143 320.59048
4.52222
257.77778
1349.32698
Mean Squares
4.07382 .94550 .94550
1.87257 .28497 .50247
.22914
122
Table 28. Variance Components for Teacher Ratings, Total Sample.
Effect
Degrees of
Freedom
Model Variance Components
Using Algorithm
Using EMs Equations
Standard Error
s R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
125 1 9
125 1125
9
1125
.1072705
.0099069
.0015365
.1643436
.0279168
.0021693
.2291358
.1072705
.0099069
.0015365
.1643436
.0279168
.0021693
.2291358
.0281430
.0094829
.0018128
.0235189
.0077020
.0017021
.0096526
123
Table 29. ANOVA Summary Table for Teacher Ratings, Anglo Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
72 1 9
72 648
9
648
1459
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
27718.50000 27414.84384 27417.94521
27841.80000 27906.00000 27426.57534
28178.00000
27409.77808
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
308.72192 5.06575 8.16712
118.23425 179.33288
3.56438
145.13562
768.22192
Mean Squares
4.28780 5.06575
.90746
1.64214 .27675 .39604
.22497
124
Table 30. Variance Components for Teacher Ratings, Anglo Sample.
Effect
Degrees of
Freedom
Model Variance Components
Using Algorithm
Using EMs Equations
Standard Error
s R 1
73
CO
C
O
73
SRI
72 1 9
72 648
9
648
.1296444
.0044542
.0031414
.1418168
.0263868
.0023571
.2239747
.1296444
.0044542
.0031414
.1418168
.0263868
.0023571
.2239747
.0377548
.0056828
.0028949
.0270252
.0098744
.0023196
.0124239
125
Table 31 ANOVA Summary Table for Teacher Ratings, Asian Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
4 1 9
4 36
9
36
99
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
2101.70000 2098.00000 2100.20000
2102.40000 2117.00000 2102.00000
2128.00000
2097.64000
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
4.06000 .36000
2.56000
.34000 12.74000
1 -44000
8.86000
30.36000
Mean Squares
1.01500 .36000 .28444
.08500 .35389 .16000
.24611
126
Table 32. Generalizability Calculations for Teacher Ratings, Asian Sample.
Variance Components in Terms of G-study Universe (of Admissible Observations) Sizes
Variance Components Variance Finite D-study For Mean Scores
Components for Universe Sampling Effect Single Observation Corrections Frequencies Estimates Standard Errors
s R 1 SR SI Rl SRI
.03
.00
.00
.00
.05
.00
.25
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1 2
10 2
10 20 20
.03 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01
.03
.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
127
Table 33. ANOVA Summary Table for Teacher Ratings, African-American Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl SRI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
15 1 9
15 135
9 135
319
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
6042.65000 5994.70625 5997.21875
6072.10000 6081.50000 6001.93750 6145.00000
5994.45313
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
48.19687 .25313
2.76563
29.19687 36.08436
4.46562 29.58436
150.54688
Mean Squares
3.21312 .25313 .30729
1.94646 .26729 -49618 .21914
128
Table 34. Variance Components for Teacher Ratings, African-American Sample.
Effect
Degrees of
Freedom
Model Variance Components
Using Algorithm
Using EMs Equations
Standard Error
s R 1
73
CO
CO
73
SRI
15 1 9
15 135
9
135
.0609259 -.0123148 -.0074074
.1727315
.0249741
.0173148
.2191435
.0609209 -.0123148 -.0074074
.1727315
.0240741
.0173146
.2191435
.0644609 .0045668 .0078856
.0668155
.0208810
.0133264
.0264779
129
Table 35. ANOVA Summary Table for Teacher Ratings, Hispanic Sample.
Effect
S R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
31 1 9
31 279
9
279
639
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
10795.05000 10697.66563 10686.67188
10890.30000 10882.50000 10701.59375
11047.00000
10684.72656
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
110.32344 12.93906
1.94531
82.31094 85.50469
1.98281
67.26719
362.27344
Mean Squares
3.55882 12.93906
.21615
2.65519 .30647 .22031
.24110
130
Table 36. Variance Components For Teacher Ratings, Hispanic Sample.
Model Variance Components
Effect
Degrees of
Freedom Using
Algorithm Using EMs Equations
Standard Error
s R 1
SR SI Rl
SRI
31 1 9
31 279
9
279
.0419131
.0322021 -.0010865
.2414091
.0326837 -.0006496
.2411010
.0419131
.0321371 -.0014113
.2414091
.0326837 -.0006496
.2411010
.0419131
.0330792
.0021196
.0653979
.0164486
.0030037
.0203405
131
Table 37. ANOVA Summary Table for Parent Ratings, Total Sample.
Effect
S 0 1
SO SI 01
SOI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
125 1 9
125 1125
9
1125
2519
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
47973.60000 47424.57143 47475.38093
48046.00000 48504.00000 47479.38095
48424.00000
47424.05714
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
549.54286 .51429
51.32381
71.88571 479.07619
3.48571
258.11429
1413.94286
Mean Squares
4.39634 .51429
5.70265
.57509
.42585
.38730
.22943
132
Table 38. Variance Components for Parent Ratings, Total Sample.
Effect
S 0 1
SO
Degrees of
Freedom
125 1 9
1125
Model Variance Components
Using Using EMs Standard Algorithm Equations Error
.1812423 -.0001735 .0203132
.2294349
.1812423 -.0001735 .0203132
.2294349
.0278386 .0003627 .0096718
.0096652
133
Table 39. ANOVA Summary Table for Parent Ratings, Anglo Sample.
Effect
S 0 1
SO SI 01
SOI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
72 1 9
72 648
9
648
1459
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
27990.70000 27724.78082 27758.95890
28039.00000 28329.00000 27762.95890
28528.00000
27722.63288
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
268.06712 2.14795
36.32603
46.15205 301.07397
1.85205
148.84795
805.36712
Mean Squares
3.72315 2.14795 4.03623
.64100 .46601 .20578
.22970
134
Table 40. Variance Components for Parent Ratings, Anglo Sample.
Effect
S 0 1
SO SI 01
SOI
Degrees of
Freedom
72 1 9
72 648
9
648
Model Variance Components
Using Using EMs Standard Algorithm Equations Error
.1422924
.0020971
.0246174
.0411297
.1181526 -.0003277
.2297036
.1422924
.0020643 .0244535
.0411297 .1181526
-.0003277
.2297036
.0310878
.0024098 .0118050
.0106147
.0144096 .0012146
.0127417
135
Table 41. ANOVA Summary Table for Parent Ratings, Asian Sample.
Effect
S 0 1
SO SI 01
SOI
Mean
Total
Degrees of
Freedom
4 1 9
4 36
9
36
99
Sums of Squares for Mean Scores
1730.75000 1705.78000 1711.50000
1733.10000 1748.50000 1713.00000
1757.00000
1705.69000
Sums of Squares for
Score Effects
25.06000 .09000
5.81000
2.26000 11.94000
1-41000
4.74000
51.31000
Mean Squares
6.26500 .09000 .64556
.56500
.33167
.15667
.13167
136
Table 42. Generalizability Calculations for Parent Ratings, Asian Sample.
Variance Components in Terms of G-study Universe (of Admissible Observations) Sizes
Variance
Effect
S 0 1 SO SI 01 SOI
Components Variance Finite
Components for Universe Single Observation Corrections
GSTUDY OPTIONS EFECT EFFECT EFFECT FORMAT PROCESS 555445544433334434444 453454344334434344434 443344343343444433434 422443444344344444533 (DATA CONTINUES FOR 600 LINES) COMMENT 1 ST SET OF D STUDY CONTROL CARDS