identification of underachievement with standardized · pdf fileidentification of...

Identification of Underachievement 1

Identification of underachievement with standardized tests, student,

parental and teacher assessments. An empirical study on the agreement among

various diagnostic sources

Albert Ziegler & Heidrun Stoeger

University Ulm, Germany

running head: Identification of underachievement

Correspondence to:

Prof. Dr. Dr. Albert Ziegler

University Ulm

Department for Educational Psychology

Robert-Koch-Str. 2

89069 Ulm

Germany

Fax: +49 (0) 731 50-23072

E-Mail: [email protected]

Ziegler, A. & Stöger, H. (2003). Identification of underachievement with standardized tests, student, parental and teacher assessment. An empirical study on the agreement among various diagnostic sources. Gifted and Talented International, 18, 87-94.

mailto:[email protected]


Abstract

Parents, teachers and students themselves are close to irreplaceable as diagnostic

sources in the identification of gifted students. The relevant research literature has, however,

expressed skepticism concerning the accuracy of such assessments, in particular with regard

to the recognition of underachievers. In an empirical investigation, a comparison was made

between assessments made by parents, teachers and the students themselves and the results of

an intelligence test regarding their efficiency in identifying underachieving and achieving

students. Also, the success rates demonstrated by parents and teachers in assessing the

motivation and ability self-confidence levels of their children were evaluated. The results

demonstrate that these person groups are ill-suited as reliable sources of information.


A great deal of interest can be generated for a reliable diagnosis of talent. Only on the

basis of such a diagnosis can appropriate suggestions for scholastic planning be voiced and

suitable promotional measures be executed. In particular, when it comes to selecting talented

students for participation in limited promotional programs or contests, is such a diagnosis

irreplaceable. Major diagnostic problems are often the result of limitations on the amount of

resources which can be made available for investigations. This frequently leads to

compromise, whereby reliable measuring instruments are replaced by more economic,

although less reliable, sources. Examples of this practice are visible in the ENTER Model1

developed by Ziegler & Stoeger (2003) or the „Screening / Preliminary Assessment“

advanced by Feldhusen and Jarwan (2000). Central here are the efforts undertaken to

document descriptions of behaviors, relevant for the type of talent in question, observed in

everyday activities within the subject’s social environment. The most important sources of

information are attachment figures from the social environment (parents, teachers or

caretakers). Concrete diagnostic steps will only be taken when indications of a high degree of

ability based on their observations have been submitted. An exacting model for such a system

is integrated into the recently opened state run school for the highly gifted in the German

State of Baden-Württemberg, for which, theoretically, about 1.5 million students are eligible

to apply. Since this is from a practical standpoint impossible, all potential applicants who are

invited to a comprehensive diagnostic assessment, must first be submitted to a preliminary

selection process.

A specific problem inherent in preliminary assessments is triggered by the existence of

underachievers. Since ability assessments made by parents and teachers are strongly biased by

scholastic achievement (Hanses & Rost, 1998; Schrader & Helmke, 1990), they often

underestimate the actual ability levels of talented underachievers and consequently don’t

register them for the ensuing diagnostic selection processes. Lamentably, underachievers


represent exactly that segment of the population of gifted students who are the most in need of

promotion, since they are insufficiently challenged by regular classroom instruction, as

evidenced by the inadequate (with respect to ability) scholastic achievements they produce

(see National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1984; Renzulli & Park, 2000; Richert,

1991; Robertson, 1991; Stephenson, 1985).

For this reason, several relevant sources suggest that a generous criterion for

admittance to gifted programs be in effect in order to effectively reduce the number of type 2

errors made (e.g. Gagné, 1991; Renzulli, 1994). It will remain questionable as to whether this

generous admittance policy actually solves this problem, until a systematic investigation on

the quality of ability assessments made by attachment figures from the social environment of

underachievers has been published. Actually, according to evidence supplied by several

investigations, these sources are very unreliable.

Judgment accuracy of talents and personal traits

Although ability assessments are better than chance (Murphy, Hall, & Colvin, 2003;

Zebrowitz, Hall, Murphy, & Rhodes, 2002), a series of influences exist which can decisively

sway the quality of such judgments. These include such factors as more gazing (Borkenau &

Liebler, 1995; Wheeler, Baron, Michell, & Ginsburg, 1979), more open arms (Borkenau &

Liebler, 1995), a less awkward, stiff or sluggish style of walking (Murphy, Hall, & Smith

LeBeau, 2001), a voice that is more pleasant (Borkenau & Liebler, 1995; Murphy et al.,

2001), louder (Reynolds & Gifford, 2001) or lower pitched (Borkenau & Liebler, 1995),

being more „properly“, more neatly, or more desirably attired (Behling & Williams, 1991;

Kwon, 1994), a narrower (Borkenau & Liebler, 1995) or a more symmetrical face (Zebrowitz

et al., 2002); less stoutness and greater height (Borkenau & Liebler, 1995). Similar biases

have been detected for the judgment of personal traits, such as motivation or anxiety.

Although most research on the accuracy of interpersonal judgments has focused on the

judgment of states (Hall & Bernieri, 2001), a large degree of research has been conducted on


the judgment of traits (e.g., Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992). Although studies have been

reported which show that greater acquaintanceship normally leads to higher accuracy in

judging personal traits of others (Funder & Colvin, 1997), there are also studies which

indicate that strangers with limited behavioral observation opportunities are just as accurate as

friends in judging personality traits such as anxiety (Colvin & Funder, 1991). Even among the

closest attachment figures of gifted students such as parents and teachers, one would not

unconditionally expect to attain the level of accuracy expected in general from diagnostically

reliable evaluations. Our own investigations (e.g. Ziegler & Schober, 1999; Heller,

Finsterwald & Ziegler, 2000) with parents and teachers recount, therefore not unexpectedly,

low to at the most moderate correlations among reliable measurements of motivation and

ability self-confidence from parent and teacher assessments.

Aims of the study

The aims of our study were to examine the quality of ability assessments made by

three groups of persons: Parents, teachers and the students themselves, whereby specific

attention was to be paid to the assessments of the underachievers. Parents and teachers operate

as gate keepers in the learning processes of their children and pupils. They decide, for

example, which talents are to be supported and encouraged, provide appropriate learning

material or seek professional assistance in talent development. Since self-nominations are in

some cases also open options, the assessments the students made of their own ability levels

were also taken into consideration.

Our initial interest was concretely focused on the quality of the direct ability

assessments made by these three groups. Examinations were undertaken to determine how

well these assessments agreed with one another and the results of a standardized ability test.

Since talent is a quality which cannot be observed directly but rather needs to be derived from

behavior patterns and achievement, we were also interested in obtaining assessments of two

further meaningful variables. When the ability assessments of specific persons are oriented on


the achievements made by the person in question (see. Hanses & Rost, 1998; Schrader &

Helmke, 1990), then a correct evaluation can only be made when, in particular, the motivation

of this person and its contribution to achievement is correctly evaluated. Furthermore, the

perceived achievement of a person is substantially influenced by how much confidence this

person has in his/her own abilities and what is communicated to other persons (Wicklund &

Gollwitzer, 1982). For this reason, in addition to the direct ability assessments made by

parents, teachers and the students themselves, assessments of motivation and ability self-

confidence for the pupils made by these groups were also considered and compared to one

another in our empirical study. Of particular interest to us were the quality of assessments

made by parents, teachers and students attending the fourth grade, since the state supported

school for the highly gifted mentioned above begins with the fifth grade.

Method

Participants

The participants of our study were 317 pupils (152 male, 165 female) attending 26

different fourth grade classes, their parents and their teachers. The pupils took about one hour

to work through a questionnaire and an ability test during normal classroom instruction

periods. The parents and teachers also receive questionnaires with which they were to

evaluate specific variables relating to their children/pupils individually.

Measurement instruments

The ability levels of the pupils were measured with the assistance of the Raven Test (Standard

Progressive Matrices, SPM; Heller, Kratzmeier, & Lengfelder, 1998). The test was chosen for

three reasons: First the Raven has very good psychometric properties. Second because it is a

group test it is very economical. Third and most important the Raven test shows high

correlations to other intelligence tests (cf. Heller et al., 1998), which is why the results can be


considered as representative. In the following, pupils will be referred to as underachievers

when their z-standardized intelligence quotient was calculated to be at least one standard

deviation higher than the z-standardized grade average calculated for their most recent report

cards.

Additionally, the children, their parents and their teachers were to estimate the ability of the

children along a percentage scale. To this end the parents were presented with a line of 100

circles, under which the percentages 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% were written. The

statement “only slightly talented” was paired with the 0% and the statement “extremely

talented” with the 100%. Above this line were the following instructions: “How talented do

you believe your child/pupil is? Please mark the circle, which best represents your opinion

with a cross. You can orient this assessment on the percentage rankings provided.” The

children were given a similar version, under their line however were a series of pictures of

children, and the instructions read as follows: “ Look below and you will see a line with a lot

of circles on it. Under these circles are pictures of five children. On the left is a child who is

not very talented. On the right is a child who is extremely talented. We would like to know

how talented you think you are. Mark the circle in this line where you would place yourself.

So if you think you are not very talented then mark one of the circles on the left-hand side

with a cross, if you think you are extremely talented then mark one of the circles on the right-

hand side with a cross. Important: be sure to place your cross on a circle and not on a child!”

We chose to use such a scale because it corresponds to the method usually engaged in

the preliminary assessments made for gifted programs. Usually it is required that the students

attain a specific percentile on an intelligence test before being admitted to such programs (for

example, the state run giftedness school is restricted to the top 2 % of the pupils).

In order to evaluate motivation, we engaged a goal orientation scale which consisted

of 30 items broken down into a learning goal orientation, an approach orientation and an

avoidance orientation. All items were to be assessed along a six-point Likert type scale with


the poles 1 (I disagree completely) and 6 (I agree completely). Sample item: In school I want

to learn as much as I possibly can (see Ziegler & Stoeger, 2002). Ability self-confidence was

measured with the help of a scale developed by Dweck (1999). This 4-item scale uses a

structured alternative format. Items are scored on a 6-point scale, where a score of 1 indicates

low confidence in ones own math abilities and a score of 6 reflects high confidence in ones

own math abilities. Sample item: When I get new work in mathematics, I´m usually sure I

will be able to learn it. vs. When I get new work in mathematics, I often think I may not be

able to learn it. The parents completed the same scales which were rewritten to refer to their

children. All scales, both those completed by the parents as well as those completed by the

children, proved to be reliable (in each case α > .78). For practical reasons it was not possible

to have the teachers complete comparative scales for each of their pupils. They were, instead,

requested to judge their students with respect to the variables evaluated in the pupil/parent

questionnaires along a six-point scale. For example they were to determine whether the pupil

demonstrates absolutely no (1) or a great deal of (6) confidence in his abilities.

Results

Talent assessments

Table 1 illustrates how many of the 317 pupils were categorized as below average,

slightly below average, average, slightly above average and above average with regard to the

intelligence quotients obtained. Furthermore, this table indicates how many of the students

placed themselves in these talent groups and how their teachers and parents resolved this

inquiry.

Insert Table 1 about here


In general, ability self-assessments and ability assessments made by parents and

teachers reveal a tendency to choose the middle. While according to the results of the SPM

only 109 (34,4%) of the 317 pupils have an average degree of talent (85 < IQ < 115), this

talent group was seen by 219 (69,1%) of the pupils as being appropriate. The parents

classified 251 (79,2%) of their children, and the teachers 244 (77%) of their pupils as to be of

average intelligence. An intelligence quotient in the slightly above average region (115 < IQ <

130) was confirmed for 74 (23,3%) of the pupils by the test results. While 76 (24%) of the

pupils estimated their intelligence to be slightly above average, the parents only classified 55

(17,4%) and the teachers only 44 (13,9%) of the children into this talent group. A similarly

deviant picture could be drawn for the ability assessments made for children with above

average abilities (IQ > 130). Although test results indicated that 36 (11,4%) of the pupils had

attained an above average ability level, only 10 (3,2%) of the pupils categorize themselves

into the highest ability group in their self-assessments. The parents only placed 4 (1,3%) of

their children, the teachers only 5 (1,6%) of their students in this group. Although the ability

assessments made by the students, their parents and their teachers as well as the SPM results

are highly significant, they are only moderately positively correlated (Table 2)2. This does not

by any means secure that they are describing the same variable.


Since the attainment of different criteria on standardized tests for admittance to

promotional programs have been applied throughout the literature (see Renzulli, 1994;

Renzulli & Reis, 1997; Stanley, 1991), we decided to apply a rather generous cut-off-point

and further subdivided the group of considered students into groups of mildly gifted students

(SPM percentile between 85 and 98) and gifted students (SPM percentile above 98). In further


analyses we will only be looking at the findings made for these two groups of students, since

primarily these students would come into question for inclusion in programs designed to

promote talent.

Out of the 110 students who attained a SPM percentile of 85 or above, 74 were mildly

gifted and 36 gifted. In the following, pupils will be referred to as underachievers when their

z-standardized intelligence quotient was calculated to be at least one standard deviation higher

than the z-standardized grade average calculated for their most recent report cards. Among the

74 mildly gifted students 16 underachievers could be identified, among the 36 gifted students

9 underachievers were found. The mildly gifted students had an average percentile ranking of

88.70, (S = 3.24) on the SPM, for the gifted students M = 98.83 ( S = 0.51; F(1,105) =

187.39, p<.01). The SPM percentile rankings of the achievers and underachievers were not

significantly different for either of the talent groups (ability level: F(1.105) = 0.30, p>.10;

ability level by achievement level: F(1,105) = 0.19, p>.10).

In Figures 1 through 3 the ability assessments made by the pupils, their parents and the

teachers are graphically illustrated. Calculations were made for 2 (achievement level:

achievers vs underachievers) x 2 (ability level: mildly gifted vs gifted) analyses of variance.

The mildly gifted students assess their ability at lower levels than the gifted students do

(F(1,105) = 5.04, p<.05). Although the gifted underachievers assess themselves in a similar

manner as the gifted achievers do, the mildly gifted underachievers make significantly lower

ability self-assessments than the mildly gifted achievers (achievement level: F(1,105) = 7.87,

p<.01; interaction: F(1,105) = 7.39, p<.01). This may possibly be grounded in the fact that the

ability self-estimations made by the mildly gifted students among both underachievers

(Kendall´s tau: r = .41) and achievers (Spearman: r = .24) were significantly correlated to

their school grades, while this was not the case for the gifted students.

Insert Figure 1 about here


No differentiation in parental ability assessments could be isolated between assertions

made for mildly gifted students and gifted students (F(1,105) = 2.33, p>.10). Assessments

made for both talent groups erroneously accorded underachievers somewhat less talent than

achievers (achievement level: F(1,105) = 3.54, p<.10, interaction: F(1,105) = 0.16, p>.10).

However, none of the ability assessments made by parents for the groups here considered

were significantly correlated to school grades.


The teachers correctly assessed the gifted students as being more talented than the

mildly gifted students (F(1,97) = 4.30, p<05). However, they were also of the opinion that

underachievers were significantly less talented than achievers (achievement level: F(1,97) =

15.41, p<.001; interaction: F(1,97) = 0.27, p>.10). The attributions of higher levels of talent to

the gifted students in contrast to the mildly gifted students may be a result of a strong

orientation on the school grades they themselves assigned, a point which is supported by the

strong correlations found between their assessments and these grades (Spearman; mildly

gifted students: r = .45, p<.001; gifted students: r = .57, p<.001). For the underachievers no

significant correlation between school notes and ability assessments could be confirmed.


Subsequent to these evaluations, we would like to draw attention to two further

findings: Students, parents and teachers do not significantly vary from one another in ability

assessments for gifted students (z<1.80, p>.10). Among the mildly gifted students, the parents

attribute higher levels of ability to underachieving pupils than the students themselves (z =


2.39, p<.05) and the teachers (z = 2.33, p<.05). A comparison of the percentile ratings on the

SPM, the ability self-assessments and the ability assessments made by the parents and the

teachers indicates the existence of systematic underestimations throughout all three evaluative

groups. This is confirmed to be highly significant by Wilcoxon Tests for both the

underachievers as well as the achievers in both ability groups (in each case z>2.56, p<.01).

Due to the generally too low assessments of talent, the phenomenon of underachievement

fails to materialize in all three of the evaluator groups.

Motivation and self-confidence assessments

In the next step we would like to investigate how well parents and teachers can assess

both the motivation of their children/pupils and how much confidence these children have in

their scholastic abilities. In Table 3 the correlations of assessments of motivation and self-

confidence among students, teachers and parents are keyed according to achievement level

and ability level.

For the mildly gifted underachievers the assessments of motivation among the three

groups of persons are uncorrelated. For the mildly gifted achievers a slightly positive

correlation could only be found between parental assessments of motivation and pupil test

results. In the group of gifted underachievers indications of a positive correlation could only

be confirmed between the motivational statements made by the students and the assessments

of this trait by their teachers, this correlation turned out to be quite high. For the group of

gifted achievers the motivational assessments made by all three groups turned out to be

uncorrelated.

With respect to confidence assessments for the group of mildly gifted underachievers,

the only moderate correlation which could be found exists between parent and teacher

evaluations. For the mildly gifted achievers low to moderately positive correlations can be

isolated among all three of the groups. In the group of gifted underachievers one highly

positive correlation was recorded between self-confidence assessments made by the pupils


themselves and the teacher evaluations of this characteristic. For the gifted achievers

moderate correlations were detected between the confidence assessments made by the

students and the evaluations made by their parents, as well as between the students and their

teachers. When scholastic achievement is factored out, no significant changes can be observed

in the correlations. Based on these results one can presume that, for ability – as already seen

by ability assessments – self-confidence and even more so for motivation, these three groups

of persons are not assessing the same variables.


In Figure 4 the motivational assessments made by the pupils are displayed according

to ability level and achievement level. Motivational differences could neither be confirmed

between mildly gifted and gifted students (F(1,105) = 0.03, p>.10), nor underachievers and

achievers for either of the two talent groups (achievement level: F(1,105) = 0.15, p>.10;

interaction: F(1,105) = 0.05, p>.10).


Figures 5 and 6 present the motivational assessments made by the parents and the

teachers. The parents ascribe matching levels – similar to those made by the children

themselves – of motivation to mildly gifted students and gifted students (F(1,105) = 2.15,

p>.10) and also see the motivation of underachievers and achievers to be of similar

magnitudes (achievement level: F(1,105) = 0.63, p>.10; interaction: F(1,105) = 0.3, p>.10). In

contrast, teacher estimations of motivation vary with regard to both talent group and

achievement level. They appraise the motivation of the gifted students to be higher than the

motivation of the mildly gifted students (F(1,105) = 5.09, p<.05) and assign higher levels of


motivation to achievers than to underachievers (F(1,105) = 18.43, p<.001; interaction:

(F(1,105) = 0.43, p>.10).

Insert Figures 5 and 6 about here

Conspicuous here is that the parents substantially and across groups – with the

exception of the mildly gifted underachievers – underestimated the motivation of their

children (Friedman; mildly gifted students: underachievers: Chi²(1)=2.25, p>.10; achievers:

t(56)=3.74, p<.001; gifted students: underachievers: Chi²(1)=2.78, p<.10; achievers:

Chi²(1)=6.26, p<.05). The teachers underestimated the motivation of the mildly gifted

underachievers (Friedman; Chi²(1)=6.25, p<.05) and correctly evaluated the motivation of the

gifted underachievers (Friedman; Chi²(1)=1.00, p>.10). They overestimated the motivation of

both the mildly and gifted achievers (mildly gifted achievers: t(56)=2.71, p<.01; gifted

achievers: Friedman: Chi²(1)=4.81, p<0.05).

According to the information displayed in Figure 7, the confidence mildly gifted

students have in their scholastic abilities does not significantly differ from that held by the

gifted students (F(1,105) = 1.12, p>.10). In contrast, the underachievers in both groups

demonstrated less confidence in their scholastic abilities than the corresponding achievers

(F(1,105) = 15.54, p<.001; interaction: F(1,105) = 0.02, p>.10).


Illustrated in Figures 8 and 9 are the confidence assessments made by the parents and

the teachers. The parents assessed the confidence held by the mildly gifted students to be

significantly lower than that of the gifted students (F(1,105) = 11.47, p<.01). They appraised

the confidence the underachievers had in their scholastic abilities to be somewhat lower than


the same quality among achievers (F(1,105) = 3.44, p<.10; interaction: F(1,105) = 1.33,

p>.10). The teachers also correctly deemed the confidence underachievers had in their

scholastic abilities to be lower than that for achievers (F(1,105) = 14.03, p<.001). The two

ability groups could not be differentiated with respect to scholastic self-confidence (F(1,105)

= 0.13, p>.10; interaction: F(1,105) = 0.57, p>.10).

Insert Figures 8 and 9 about here

The parents overestimated how much confidence their gifted students had in their

scholastic abilities, independent of whether they were underachievers or achievers (Friedman;

underachievers: Chi²(1)=5.44, p<.05; achievers: Chi²(1)=9.78, p<0.01). In contrast, the

parents of mildly gifted students were able to correctly assess how much confidence their

students had in both of the achievement groups (Friedman; underachievers: Chi²(1)=0.07,

p>.10; achievers: t(56)=0.56, p>.10). The teachers slightly underestimated the confidence

their gifted underachievers had in their scholastic abilities (Friedman; Chi²(1)=2.78, p<0.10)

and were able to correctly appraise self-confidence for the other groups (mildly gifted

students: underachievers: Friedman; Chi²(1)=1.00, p>0.10; achievers: t(56)=0.37, p>.10;

gifted students: achievers: Friedman; Chi²(1)=2.67, p>.10).

Summary and discussion

Highly gifted underachievers are exactly those who profit most from special

promotional measures, such as a state run school for gifted students, since they cannot be

optimally fostered by regular classroom instruction (see Renzulli & Park, 2000; Richert,

1991; Robertson, 1991). However, in practice, it is often the case that these students are

neglected by special promotional programs. Resource problems are primarily responsible for


this. Due to the great demand on many promotional programs, only a minimal proportion of

the applicants will be able to participate in the actual diagnostic, a preliminary selection

process must often be employed. In this preliminary selection process the opinions of various

attachment figures are often taken into consideration, to ascertain whether the child in

question has a high degree of talent or not (see Feldhusen & Jarwan, 2000; Ziegler & Stoeger,

2003). Should, on the basis of the opinions of these attachment figures, giftedness appear to

be improbable – which is often the case among gifted underachievers – the applicant will be

turned down, without having had the benefit of further diagnostic measures.

In our study, therefore, an examination was made to determine how well ability

estimations made by parents, teachers and the students themselves agree with one another and

with the results of a standardized intelligence test. Particular attention was paid to

underachievers. Since persons making ability assessments are to some extent orientated on

(scholastic) achievements (see Rost & Hanses, 1997; Schrader & Helmke, 1990) and since

these are not only stipulated by ability but also by motivation, we were also interested to

determine how well parents and teachers were able to assess the motivation of their children

and pupils. Finally, the effectiveness of parents and teachers in assessing the self-confidence

their children/pupils had in their scholastic abilities was put to the test. This interested us

fundamentally because persons who, due to their high levels of self-confidence in their own

abilities, communicate higher achievement rates, are often judged to be gifted (Wicklund &

Gollwitzer, 1982).

In general, ability assessments by all three groups of persons were dominated by a

tendency to move to the middle. Most of the pupils judged themselves to be of average

intelligence and were also placed in this category by their parents and teachers. The group of

mildly gifted students attracted just about as many students as were to be expected, based on

the results of the intelligence test, in comparison the parents and teachers held far too few

students for mildly gifted with respect to the actual test results. According to the ability self-


assessments, as well as the parent and teacher ability assessments, a considerably small

number of students were to be classified as gifted students, notably fewer than the actual

number confirmed by the results of the intelligence test.

Between the results of the intelligence test and the ability assessments made by the

parents, teachers and the students themselves, one can only confirm moderate relationships of

statistical significance, which may indicate that these variables are not referring to the same

entity. If one chooses to inspect – as is usually the case for single factor models of giftedness

– a measure of discrepancy between cognitive abilities (IQ) and goal driven achievements

(grades), in our sample about one quarter (21,62%) of the mildly gifted students and exactly

one fourth of the gifted students turned out to be underachievers. This proportion is relatively

small in comparison to the findings of other investigations (see Richert, 1991). When one

considers the fact that our investigation was conducted in fourth grade classrooms, then this

rather low rate is not very remarkable. Causal factors for underachievement, such as low

levels of motivation or self-confidence (see Butler-Por, 1993), occur rather infrequently at this

age level. In contrast to older students, forth grade school children can be characterized by

high levels of motivation and a general optimism with respect to their learning and intellectual

capabilities (Nicholls, 1992), which could possibly work as a protective shield against

underachievement.

Regardless of talent group (mildly and gifted students) and whether underachievement

was at hand or not, the assessments made by the students, their parents and their teachers were

all lower than the actual results obtained with the intelligence tests. This systematic

underestimation of ability had the curious repercussion that, from the point of view of the

students, the parents and the teachers the phenomenon of underachievement could not be

discerned at all.

Although the pupils themselves and the teachers – regardless of the generally too low

assessments – attribute higher levels of ability to the gifted students than to the mildly gifted


students, the ability assessments made by the parents for these two groups cannot be

differentiated from one another. Teachers and parents from both talent groups judge the

underachievers to be significantly resp. somewhat less talented than the achievers. In contrast,

only for the group of mildly gifted students do the underachievers see themselves as being

less talented than the achievers do. The underachievers and achievers in the group of gifted

students assess themselves as being equivalently talented. This can possibly be traced back to

the significantly positive correlation found between the ability assessments of the mildly

gifted students and school grades, which could not be duplicated for the gifted students.

A comparison made among the ability assessments made by parents, teachers and

students reveals no indication of differences in opinion among the gifted students. In the

group of mildly gifted students these evaluations made for achievers are also very similar to

one another among these three groups of persons. The ability of the underachievers in this

group is judged by the parents to be higher than evidenced by judgments made by the teachers

and the students themselves.

In summation, the usefulness of ability assessments made by parents teachers and the

students themselves appears to be rather poor. Their evaluations only moderately correlated

with one another and with the results of the intelligence test, which indicates that they may

not have been assessing the same variable. In addition, all three groups of persons made

ability estimations which were too low in terms of the results of the test, which makes it

practically impossible to recognize the phenomenon of underachievement.

A similarly negative picture is drawn from the information gathered regarding

motivation assessments. Only two correlations could be substantiated; between the mildly

gifted achievers and their parents, and between the parents and teachers of the gifted

underachievers. Here we are confronted with the same verdict maintained for assessments of

ability, in that we cannot be certain that the same variable is being measured by the parties in

question.


All the same, the parents of the mildly gifted and gifted students correctly judged the

motivation of the achievers and underachievers to be equivalent within each of the two ability

groups. However, their evaluations of motivation for all groups – with the one exception of

mildly gifted underachievers - were significantly lower than the test results obtained from the

students.

In stark contrast to the parents, the teachers assigned higher motivation levels to the

gifted students than they did to the mildly gifted students. Furthermore, they judged the

achievers in both ability groups to be more motivated than the underachievers. This result can

very possibly be due to a strong influence of scholastic achievement being exercised on the

judgments made here by the teachers (see also Hanses & Rost, 1998; Hany, 1993; Schrader

& Helmke, 1990). In accord with this synopsis, the teachers overestimated the motivation

levels of the achievers in both ability groups. The motivational drive of the mildly gifted

underachievers was underestimated by the teachers, and the gifted underachievers were

accurately judged.

The statements gathered from the pupils as to the confidence they had in their

scholastic ability and the assessments made by their parents and teachers on this variable did

result in more correlations than the assessments of ability and motivation, they do not

however indicate that all three groups of persons are referring to the same variable.

Correlations were predominantly isolated for estimations made by achievers, their parents and

their teachers. The test results obtained for the mildly gifted achievers showed moderately

positive correlations between the assessments made by parents and the students, and between

the teachers and their students. The parent and teacher assessments made for this group were

also positively correlated. While the teachers, in harmony with the statements made by the

pupils, saw no need to differentiate between levels of self-confidence displayed by mildly

gifted and gifted students, the parents attributed lower degrees of self-confidence to the mildly

gifted students than to the gifted students. The parents as well as the teachers correctly


assigned lower levels of self-confidence in scholastic ability to underachievers than to

achievers. However, the parents of gifted students overestimated the confidence these students

have in their abilities. The teachers slightly underestimated the self-confidence their gifted

underachievers have in their scholastic ability.

All things considered, our study leads us to a rather skeptical opinion on how

appropriate assessments made by parents, teachers and the students themselves can be as a

diagnostic source for the evaluation of giftedness or underachievement. Particularly

remarkable and thought provoking is the fact that the phenomenon of underachievement does

not materialize at all due to a systematic underestimation of ability levels in general. If an

attempt is being made to recruit suitable candidates for a promotional program specifically

designed for gifted students, then the opinions held by the student candidates, their teachers or

their parents cannot be confirmed as reliable sources. Since in many cases limitations on

investigative resources do not permit one to forgo these assessments, it is essential to

contemplate measures which can be taken to improve the quality of assessments made by

these groups of persons. Whether a special seminar for parents and teachers could lead to

better identification of gifted students, and in particular of gifted underachievers, needs to be

clarified in the framework of subsequent studies. For example, one could supply parents and

teachers with detailed information regarding the problem of underachievement, and explain to

them that they should rely more on the competence of the child in question and less so on

his/her scholastic achievements or learning behavior when making ability assessments.

However, experiences made by previous studies (see Gear, 1978) generate apprehension that

this method may not lead to an improvement in the quality of identification, but rather solely

to an increase in the nomination rate – irregardless of whether underachievement is at hand or

not.

Implications for research and practice


The study at hand was able to uncover two central findings. First, the combination of

psychometric tests and assessments made by parents, teachers and the students themselves

provide us with very contradictory images. In particular the attribution of general ability

levels led to highly differential assessments. Second, an answering tendency was identified

which was extremely significant not only for the investigation of talent, but essentially for the

identification of talents: Assessors refrain from assigning pupils to either of the extreme talent

categories. Due to this bias, hardly any students were designated to be highly gifted, therefore

teachers, parents and the students themselves appear to be unsuitable informants of giftedness.

Even when this talent criteria is relaxed - for example when teachers, parents and pupils are to

categorize talented individuals into the top 20% - the results are disappointing and a

significant proportion of gifted students remain unrecognized. It must be mentioned that these

findings, which are surely unexpected for those involved with giftedness research and

promotion, are concordant with findings found by studies on the assessment abilities of

persons. These two findings, which could be replicated in other studies, have varied and

meaningful implications for both giftedness research as well as the identification of talents in

the praxis. In retrospect, the results of several research studies in which the identification of

talented persons were based entirely on assessments made by individuals, must now be placed

in question. Also when a combination of assessments and psychometric tests are applied, a

critical examination must be made to determine, which source and to what degree this source

contributed to the final evaluation. Concerns regarding the quality of these identifications are

also valid with respect to diagnoses made in practical environments insofar as they were

primarily based on assessments. For the time being, in practice as in research, there does not

seem to be a viable alternative to psychometric testing, whereby our investigation was able to

demonstrate their superiority in comparison to assessments, but not their validity. We would

like to recommend that future studies take a closer look at questions of identification, due to


the fact that it is a ground premise of every relevant research area, and it permits the object of

the investigation to be identified with sufficient confidence.

References

Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictor

of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256-274.

Behling, D.U., & Williams, E.A. (1991). Influence of dress on perception of

intelligence and expectations of scholastic achievement. Clothing and Textiles Research

Journal, 9, 1-7.

Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1995). Observable attributes as manifestations and cues

of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality, 63, 1-25.

Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In: K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks &

A. H. Passow (Eds), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and

Talent (pp. 649-668). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Colvin, C.R., Funder, D.C. (1991). Predicting personality and behavior: A boundary

on the acquaintanceship effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 884-894.

Durr, W. H. (1964). The gifted student. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and

development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Feldhusen, J. F. & Jarwan, F. A. (2000). Identification of gifted and talented youth for

educational programs. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R. Sternberg & R. Subotnik (Eds.),

International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Funder, D.C., & Colvin, C.R. (1997). Congruence of others´ and self-judgments of

personality. In R- Hogan, J.A. Johnson (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 617-

647). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.


Gagné, F. (1991). Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In N.

Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 65-80). Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Gear, G. H. (1978). Effects of training on teachers accuracy in the identification of

gifted children. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 90-97.

Hall, J.A., Bernieri, F.J. (Eds.). (2001). Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and

measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hanses, P. & Rost, D. H. (1998). Das “Drama” der hochbegabten Underachiever:

“Gewöhnliche” oder “außergewöhnliche” Underachiever? [The drama of the highly gifted

underachiever: “Common” or “exceptional” underachiever?] Zeitschrift für Pädagogische

Psychologie, 12, 53-71.

Hany, E. A. (1993) How teachers identify gifted students: Feature processing or

concept based classification? European Journal for High Ability, 4, 196-211.

Heller, K. A., Finsterwald, M. & Ziegler, A. (2000). Implicit theories of German

mathematics and physics teachers on gender specific giftedness and motivation. In A. Ziegler

(Ed.), Antecedents of motivation and behavior. The role of implicit theories of intelligence

(pp. 172-189). Lengerich: Pabst International.

Heller, K. A., Kratzmeier, H. & Lengfelder, A. (1998). Standard Progressive Matrices

(SPM; Raven, J.C., 1958). Goettingen, Germany: Beltz.

Kwon, Y. H. (1994). The influence of appropriateness of dress and gender on the self-

perception of occupational attributes. Clothings and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 33-39.

Murphy, N. A., Hall, J. A., & Smith LeBeau, L. (2001). Who´s smart? Beliefs about

the expression of intelligence in social behavior. Representative Research in Social

Psychology, 25, 34-42.

Murphy, N. A., Hall, J. A., & C. R. Colvin (2003). Accurate intelligence assessments

in social interactions: Mediators and gender effects. Journal of Personality, 71, 465-493.


National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1984). A nation at risk: The

imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Nicholls, J. G. (1992). The general and the specific in the development and expression

of achievement motivation. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 31-

56). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.

Renzulli, J. S. R. (1984). The triad-revolving door system: A research-based approach

to identification and programming for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28,

163-171.

Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school

improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. R. & Park, S. (2000). Gifted dropouts: The who and the why. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 44, 261-271.

Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: New

directions for developing high-end learning. In N. Coangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook

of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 136-154). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Reynolds, D.J., & Gifford, R. (2001). The sounds and sights of intelligence: A lens

model channel analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 187-200.

Richert, E. S. (1991). Patterns of underachievement among gifted students. In M.

Bireley & J. Genshaft (Eds.), Understanding the gifted adolescent: Educational,

developmental, and multicultural issues (pp. 139-162). New-York: Teachers College Press.

Robertson, E. (1991). Neglected dropouts: The gifted and talented. Equity &

Excellende, 25, 62-74.

Rost, D. H. & Hanses, P. (1997). Wer nichts leistet, ist nicht begabt? Zur

Identifikation hochbegabter Underachiever durch Lehrkräfte, [If you are not successful, you

can´t be gifted. The identification of underachievers through teachers]. Zeitschrift für

Entwicklungspsychologie and Pädagogische Psychologie, 19, 167-177.


Schrader, F. W. & Helmke, A. (1990). Lassen sich Lehrer bei der

Leistungsbeurteilung von sachfremden Gesichtspunkten leiten? Eine Untersuchung zu

Determinanten diagnostischer Lehrerurteile, [Do teachers let other points of view influence

their performance judgements? An investigation of the determinants of teachers’ diagnostic

assessments]. Zeitschrift fuer Entwicklungspsychologie und Paedagogische Psychologie, 22,

312-324.

Stanley, J. C. (1991). An academic model for educating the mathematically talented.

Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 36-42.

Stephenson, R. S. (1985). A study of the longitudinal dropout rate: 1980 eighth-grade

cohort followed from June, 1980 through February, 1985. Miami, FL: Dade County Public

Schools Office of Educational Accountability.

Wheeler, R.W., Baron, J.C., Michell, S., & Ginsburg, H. J. (1979). Eye contact and the

perception of intelligence. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 101-102.

Wicklund, R. A. & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic Self-completion. Hillsdale,

N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zebrowitz, L.A., Hall, J.A., Murphy, N.A., & Rhodes, G. (2002). Looking smart and

looking good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 28, 238-249.

Ziegler, A. & Schober, B. (1999). Der Zusammenhang von Eltern- und

Kindkognitionen bezüglich des Faches Mathematik. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 11,

72-95.

Ziegler, A. & Stoeger, H. (2002). Motivationale Ziele im Mathematikunterricht von

MittelstufenschülerInnen am Gymnasium, [Motivational orientations of adolescent students in

mathematics instruction]. Empirische Pädagogik, 16, 57-78.

Ziegler, A. & Stoeger, H. (2003). The ENTER Model for the Identification of Talented

Persons. In A. Matison, S. Urban & R. Bulfield (Eds.), Gifted 2003: A celebration


downunder, Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Conference of the World Council for Gifted and

Talented Children (WCGTC). Adelaide, South Australia [CD-Rom].


Table 1: The number of students in each of the ability groups according to the results of an

intelligence test, and the categorization to these ability groups via assessments made by the

students, their parents and their teachers

IQ < 70 70 < IQ < 85 85 < IQ < 115 115 < IQ < 130 IQ > 130

SPM

27

71

109

74

36

Ability self-

assessments

4

1

219

76

10

Parental

ability

assessments

251

55

4

Teacher

ability

assessments

2

244

44

5

Note: Since IQ scores are more commonly used in giftedness research than percentile

rankings, ability will be rated with IQ here. IQ<70 ≈ percentile (PR) <2, 70<IQ<85 ≈

2<PR<16, 85<IQ<115 ≈ 16<PR<84, 115<IQ<130 ≈ 84<PR<98, IQ>130 ≈ PR>98


Table 2: Intercorrelational matrix of the percentile ratings found for the SPM and the ability

assessments made by the parents, teachers and the students

Teacher ability

assessments

Parental ability

assessments

SPM Percentile

Self-assessments of

ability

.43*** .45*** .25***

Teacher ability

assessments

.41*** .43***

Parental ability

assessments

.32***

Note: ***: p<.001


Table 3: Intercorrelational matrix of the test results obtained for motivation and ability self-

confidence among gifted students as well as parental and teacher assessments of these

variables. Correlation were calculated with Spearman’ coefficient and Kendall´s tau.

Mildly gifted students Gifted students

Underachievers Achievers Underachievers Achievers

M-P M-T M-P M-T M-P M-T M-P M-T

M-S -.05 .04 .27* .01 .20 -.19 -.03 -.15

M-P -.13 .07 .67* -.02

Mildly gifted students Gifted students

Underachievers Achievers Underachievers Achievers

C-P M-T M-P M-T M-P M-T M-P M-T

M-S .00 .14 .24** .38** -.03 .70** .61** .45**

M-P .50** .34** -.14 .20

Notes: M-S = Motivation measured for the Student, M-P = Motivation assessment made by

the Parents, M-T = Motivation assessment made by the Teachers, C-S = Confidence in own

ability measured for the Student, C-P = Confidence assessment made by the Parents, C-T =

Confidence assessment made by the Teachers, *: p<.05, **: p<.01


30

40

50

60

70

80

Mildly gifted Gifted

UnderachieverAchiever

Figure 1: Self-assessments of ability keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted students as

well as underachievers and achievers


40

50

60

70

80

90



Figure 2: Parental assessments of ability keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted students

as well as underachievers and achievers


40

50

60

70

80

90



Figure 3: Teacher assessments of ability keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted students



2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5



Figure 4: Student motivation keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted students as well as

underachievers and achievers


2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5



Figure 5: Parental assessments of motivation keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted

students as well as underachievers and achievers


2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5



Figure 6: Teacher assessments of motivation keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted

students as well as underachievers and achievers


2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5



Figure 7: Student ability self-confidence keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted students



2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5



Figure 8: Parental assessments of ability self-confidence keyed for mildly gifted students and

gifted students as well as underachievers and achievers


2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5

5,5



Figure 9: Teacher assessments of ability self-confidence keyed for mildly gifted students and

gifted students as well as underachievers and achievers


Footnote

1

ENTER is an acronym, comprised of the first letters in the terms Explore, Narrow,

Test, Evaluate and Review. The intention of the model is not to describe the “correct” process

to be undertaken in the identification of the highly gifted, but rather to offer a general schema

which operates as a heuristic in the planning of concrete identifications.

2

Due to the low number of cases in the underachiever group, an alpha-adjustment of the

significance level was not undertaken in order to avoid the possibility of a Type II Error.

Readers should keep in mind that some of the relationships identified here could possibly

overestimate the magnitude of the correlation.

identification of underachievement with standardized · pdf fileidentification of...

Documents