PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 4(2): 115-120 (1996)ISSN: 0128-7702

© Penerbit Universiti Pertanian Malaysia

The Effectiveness of Teacher Ratings in Identifying PotentialIntellectually Gifted Malay Children

ABD MAJID MOHD ISAFaculty of Educational StudiesUniversiti Pertanian Malaysia

43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

Keywords: teacher rating scale, intellectually gifted, intelligence, Malay children

ABSTRAK.

Dalam kajian ini, keberkesanan skala 'Scale for Rating Behaviour Characteristics of Superior Children(SRBCSS) diuji sebagai alat yang berpotensi untuk mengenalpasti kanak-kanak melayu yang pintas cerdas.Murid yang mendapat skor 46 ujian 'Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven's SPM) diuji denganujian WISC-R. Daripada 303 responden, 101 mendapat skala IQ 120 atau lebih dan dikelaskan sebagaipintasn cerdas. Guru dimintas menilai responden dengan menggunakan SRBCSS yang diterjemahkan keBahasa Melayu. Dapatan kajian ini menunjukkan bahawa guru perlu hanya beberapa sub-ujian yangberkaitan jika mereka hendak dilibatkan dalam proses mengenalpasti kanak-kanak pintar cerdas.

ABSTRACT

In this study, the effectiveness of the Malay version of scale for rating behaviour characteristics of superiorstudents (SRBCSS) was tested as a potential tool for the identification of intellectually gifted Malay children.Pupils with a score of at least 46 on Raven's standard progressive matrices (Raven's SPM) were given theWISC-R test. Of the 303 respondents, 101 scored a full-scale IQ of 120 or more and were classified asintellectually gifted. Teachers were asked to rate the respondents using the translated version of SRBCSS.The findings of this study suggest that teachers should be given appropriate SRBCSS subtests if they areinvolved in identifying intellectually gifted children.

INTRODUCTION

A number of researchers have reported thatintelligence tests and rating by teachers arethe two most commonly used tools in theselection of intellectually gifted childrenUenkins 1979; Alvino et al. 1981; Yarbor­ough and Johnson 1983). In a landmarkstudy by Pegnato and Birch (1959), teacherscould only effectively identify 50% of thegifted children. Their finding has stimulatedmany researchers to validate the efficiencyand effectiveness of teachers' ratings.

In an identification programme, teachersare asked to nominate children without anyguidelines, or they are asked to rate eachstudent using a given set of rating instru­ments. Teachers' ratings, following guidelines,should be more effective and efficient thanteachers' nominations (Renzulli and Hart-

man 1971; Borland 1978).A study by Solomon (1979) indicated that

by using a checklist, teachers' identificationefficiency increased from 25 to 50%. On thecontrary, Ashman and Vukelich (1983) foundthat the effectiveness of teachers' ratings was20-81 % and efficiency was 54-71 %. I t isinteresting to note that Gear (1975) foundthat teachers could be trained to improvetheir efficiency in identifying gifted children.Teachers who attended a special trainingprogramme identified 86%, while teachers inthe control group identified only 50% ofgifted children. Since the cost of training allteachers is high, an initial study should beconducted to find the type of teacher who ishighly effective in identifying intellectuallygifted children so they can be trained toidentify such children in the classroom.

Abd Majid Mohd Isa

Various types of teacher rating are beingdeveloped and tested. The most widely usedteacher rating is the scale for rating behaviourcharacteristics of superior students (SRBCSS)developed by Renzulli et al. (1971), whonoted that SRBCSS is intended to provide anobjective aid to guide teacher judgement inidentifying gifted children. Rust and Lose(1980) found that the SRBCSS was notsuccessful in aiding teachers if the criterionof giftedness is based on IQscores. In light ofthis finding, Burke et al. (1982) suggested thatSRBCSS must be extensively studied. There­fore, the effectiveness of SRBCSS, especiallythe translated version, must be determinedbefore it can be utilized extensively in iden­tifying intellectually gifted Malay children.

METHODOLOGYSelection oj Respondents and Data Collection

The study involved 1047 Primary Six Malaystudents studying at 16 primary schools inTampin district. The respondents of thisstudy were those with a score of at least 46on the Raven's standard progressive matrices(Raven's SPM) (Raven 1965). Raven's SPMhas been widely used to screen and identifyintellectually gifted children for educationaland research purposes (Pegnato and Birch1959; Martinson and Lessinger 1960; Rustand Lose 1980). For this study, a score of 46was proposed so that all potential intellec­tually gifted children would be included (AbdMajid 1994).

The number of students with a score of 46on Raven's SPM was 303 (149 boys and 154girls). They were the respondents for thisstudy. The researcher administered WISC-R(Wechsler intelligence scale for children­revised) to all respondents. The criterion forintellectual giftedness in this study was basedon IQ scores generated by WISC-R; thosewith an IQ score of 120 or above werecategorized as intellectually gifted. Therewere 101 pupils (56 boys and 45 girls) withan IQ score of 120 or above.

While the researcher administered theWISC-R, teachers of the respondents wereasked to rate the respondents using theSRBCSS. Each respondent was rated by

four teachers, Malay, English, mathematicsand class teachers.

Instruments

There were three instruments used in thisstudy, the WISC-R, Raven's SPM andSRBCSS. The WISC-R and Raven's SPMare intelleigence tests. The SRBCSS, on theother hand, is a teacher rating scale.

The WISC-R is an individually adminis­tered intelligence test published in 1974. Itconsists of 10 subtests: information, compre­hension, arithmetic, similarities, vocabulary,picture completion, block design, picturearrangement, object assembly and coding.The instructions and the items were trans­lated into Malay using the proceduresproposed by the manual. It was then pre­tested using 100 Malay children of similar age(Abd Majid and Othman 1995). The test­retest reliability of the Malay version ofWISC-R ranged from .65 to .89. The full­scale IQ score, the criterion for giftedness inthis study, has a reliability of .91. Thecriterion for intellectual giftedness is basedon the IQscore generated by WISC-R; thosewi th an IQ score of 120 or above werecategorized as intellectually gifted.

Raven's SPM was first published in 1938and designed to assess the mental ability ofpeople of all ages and diverse educational andcultural backgrounds. The scale consists of60items. The tester is required to comprehendmeaningless figures that demand a systematicmethod of observation and reasoning. Theinternal consistency and the stability ofRaven's SPM is reported to be .6-.97. ForMalay children, the Raven's SPM had aninternal consistency of. 76 and the test-retestreliability after 30 days was .77 (Abd Majid1994). Since it is a non-verbal test, it does notrequire any translation. In this study,Raven's SPM was used to screen therespondents.

Currently, the most widely used teacher'srating is the scale for rating behaviourcharacteristics of superior students(SRBCSS) developed by Renzulli et al. in1971 (Rust and Lose 1980). The SRBCSS hasfour subtests: learning (8 items), motivation(9 items), creativity (10 items) and leadership

116 PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 4No. 2,1996

The Effectiveness of Teacher Ratings in Identifying Potential Intellectually Gifted Malay Children

(10 items). Renzulli et al. reported thatSRBCSS significantly discriminated betweengifted and average children. It has a promis­ing stability coefficient (r= 0.77-0.91). Theconstruct validity of four subtests was estab­lished using factor analysis.

In this study, the English version ofSRBCSS was initially translated into Malayby the researcher. It was then given to atranslation panel of five academicians in theFaculty of Educational Studies, UniversitiPertanian Malaysia. After receiving separatecomments from each member of the panel,the researcher made the necessary changes.The final Malay version of SRBCSS wasgiven to five final-year Bachelor of Education(Teaching of English as a Second Language)students in UPM. They translated each itemin the SRBCSS back into English. The 'backtranslation procedure' was essential to ensurethat the content of the Malay version ofSRBCSS had not deviated from the originalEnglish version.

RESULTS

In this study, data on teacher ratings wereanalysed according to the total score forSRBCSS for each teacher and the subtest~core of SRBCSS of each teacher.

Total Score oj SRBCSS

On the basis of the total score for each teacher,there were four scores that together providedthe total SRBCSS score. The four scores werefrom the Malay, mathematics, English andclass teachers.

The results from a stepwise procedure ofmultiple regression indicated that ratingsfrom the three subject teachers were signifi­cant predictors of intellectual giftedness. Theamount of variance shared by these threeteachers is small (around 12%) (Table 1).

The best predictor of giftedness was theMalay teacher rating with 10% sharedvariance. The mathematics teacher and theEnglish teacher only gave an additional sharedvariance of 1% each to the Malay teacher.

The result from Fisher's linear discrimi­nant function analysis indicated that all fourteachers' total ratings ofSRBCSS can be usedto discriminate between intellectually giftedand non-intellectually gifted. The summaryof Wilks' statistics is presented in Table 2.The manner in which the variable is enteredis similar to the multiple regression with Malayteachers the first variable to be entered.

Data shown in Table 3 indicate that thefour teachers' total rating score usingSRBCSS correctly classified 64.69%[(134+ 62)/303]. Nearly 40% of the intellec­tually gifted were classified as non-in tellec­tually gifted (false negatives). Among thosewho were classified as intellectually gifted,more than half were non-intellectually gifted(false posi ti ves).

Teacher Sub test Score of SRBCSS

Based on the teacher subtest score ofSRBCSS, there were 16 measures of teacherrating for every respondent (4 teachers x 4subtests). Data shown in Table 4 indicate thatonly five measures were significant predictorsof intellectual giftedness: Malay learning,maths motivation, English learning, classcreativity and class leadership. The fivesignificant predictors shared 20% of variancewith intellectual giftedness, nearly twice theamount of variance of the total score ofSRBCSS for the four teachers.

The stepwise procedure of multipleregression of the teacher subtests of SRBCSSindicated that five teacher subtests weresignificant predictors of intellectual gifted­ness. However, the Wilks' procedure of

TABLE IPredictors of intellectual giftedness among the total score of SRBCSS

Step Variable R R 2 Adj.R2 B Beta T Sig.T

1 Malay .31 .10 .09 .005 .20 3.06 .00242 Maths .33 .11 .11 .003 .13 3.27 .02403 English .35 .12 .12 .002 .13 .207 .0398

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 4 No.2, 1996 117

Abd Majid Mohd Isa

TABLE 2Discriminant analysis for total score of SRBCSS (N = 303)

Step Teacher Wilks' Lambda

I Malay .902 English .893 Maths .884 Class .87

Sig

.0001

.0001

.0001

.0000

TABLE 3Predictive classification results for intellectually and non-intellectually gifted (N = 303)

Variables

MalayEnglishMathClass(Constant)

Group

on-giftedGifted

Fisher's Linear discrimination FunctionNon-intellectuallyGifted

.9328

.9301

.1663

.1301-27.8636

Classification ResultsPredicted Group Membership

Non-gifted

134 (66.3%)39 (38.6%)

IntellectuallyGifted

.1216

.1085

.1860

.1195-30.2125

Gifted

68 (33.7%)62 (61.4%)

TABLE 4Predictors of intellectual giftedness among the subtests of SRBCSS

Step Variables R R 2 Adj.R2 B Beta T Sig.TTeacher-subtest

1 Malay-learning .31 .09 .09 .014 .16 2.32 .02122 Maths-motivation .37 .14 .13 .023 .23 4.29 .00003 English-learning .40 .16 .15 .01 I .I 3 2.1 I .03604 Class-creativi ty .42 .18 .17 -.013 -.19 -3.29 .001 I

5 Class-leadership .44- .20 .19 .015 .16 2.41 .0167

discriminant analysis identified eight (8)teacher subtests. The summary of the resultsis shown in Table 5.

The effectiveness of 5 teacher subtests asthe result of multiple regression procedureand 8 teacher subtests from Wilks' discrimi­nant function analysis in classifying intellec­tual giftedness is shown in Table 6. Thedifference between using eight teacher subtest

measures and five teacher subtests is that thefive teacher subtests failed to identify only one(I) intellectually gifted child. Therefore, fiveteacher subtests are more feasible than eightteacher subtest measures.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above findings, both proceduresresulted in 33% 'false negatives' and 50%

li8 Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 4 No.2, 1996

The Effectiveness of Teacher Ratings in Identifying Potential Intellectually Gifted Malay Children

TABLE 5Discriminant analysis for the subtests of SRBCSS (N = 303)

Step

I234

5678

Variable

Malay-learningMaths-motivatingEnglish-learningClass-creativityClass-leadershipMalay-leadershipEnglish-IeadershipClass-motivation

Wilk'sLambda

.91

.86

.84

.82

.80

.80

.80

.79

Sig

.0001

.0001

.0001

.0001

.0001

.0001

.0001

.0001

TABLE 6Predicted group membership by discriminant function analysis teacher-sub test of SRBCSS

Actual

Teacher-Subtest SRBCSS8 MeasuresPredicted

o I

5 MeasuresPredicted

o I

o 202

!OI

147(72.8% )

35(34.7%)

55(27.2%)

66(65.3%)

141(69.8%)

34(33.7%)

61(30.2%)

67(66.3%)

% correct 69.3 68.7

Note: 0 = non-intellectually giftedI = intellectually gifted

'false positives'. However, the five teacher­subtests demanded less teacher's time inadministering SRBCSS as each subtest hadnot more than 10 items. On the contrary, theformer procedure (total score) requiredteachers to appraise each student using all37 items of SRBCSS.

Since both procedures contained a largenumber of 'false negatives', there must besome reason why teacher rating did noteffectively identify gifted children. Awanbor(1989) found that teachers are more likely touse scholastic achievement as an index toidentify gifted children. Burt (1955) allegedthat teachers' gradings are markedly biasedin favour of memory or capacity to learn.Data from a large body of research on 'self­fulfilling prophecy' indicated that teachers'behaviour and attitude are based upon

physical attractiveness, compliance and ac­tive participation. Gifted children are, on theother hand, 'precocious' (Keating 1975), witha tendency to exhibit undesirable behaviourto the teachers.

In the Malaysian context, teachers arethe most economical personnel to be utilizedin identification of intellectual giftedness.Based on the findings of this study, it isessential for the authorities to train teachersto be objective in their evaluations. Even so,one must recognize that there is a great dealof error in the classification of gifted children.

REFERENCES

ABD MAJID MOHD ISA. 1994. KeberkesananRaven SPM dalam mengenal pasti kanak­kanak Melayu pintar cerdas. Pertanika ]. Soc.Sci. Hum. 2: 63-68.

PertanikaJ. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 4 No.2, 1996 119

Abd Majid Mohd Isa

ABD MAJID MOHD ISA and OTHMA r

MOHAMED. 1995. Appraising giftednessusng the Malay version of WISC-R. Perta­nika J. Soc. Sci. Hum. 3: 119-124.

ALVINO, J., R.C. McDONNEL and S. RICHERT.1981. National survey of identification prac­tises in gifted and talented education. Excep­tional Children 48: 124-132.

ASHMAN, S.S. and C. VUKELICH 1983. Theeffect of different types of nomination formson teachers' identification of gifted children.Psychology in the Schools 20: 518-527.

AWANBOR, D. 1989. Characteristics of gifted andtalented children and problems of identifica­tion by teachers and parents. InternationalJournal of Education Development 9(4): 263-269.

BORLAND, J. 1978. Teacher identification ofgifted: A new look. Journal for the Education ofthe Gifted 2: 22-32.

BURKE, J.p., C.E. HAWORTH and W.B. WARE.1982. Scale for rating behavioral character­istics of superior students: An invenstigation offactor structure. Journal of Special Education8(2): 8-17.

BURT, C. 1955. The evidence for the concept ofin telligence. British Journal of EducationalPsychology 25: 158-177.

GEAR, H.H. 1975. Effect of training program onthe teachers' accuracy in the identification ofthe intellectually gifted children. Doctoraldissertation, University of Connecticut.

JENKINS, R.A. 1979. A Resource Guide to Preschooland Primary Programs for the Gifted and Talented.Mansfield Centre, CT: Creative LearningPress.

KEATING, D.P. 1975. Intellectual Talent: Researchand Development. Baltimore: johns HopkinsUniversity.

MARTINSON, R.A. and L.M. LESSINGER. 1960.Problems in identification of intellectuallygifted pupils. Exceptional Children 26: 227-242.

PEGNATO, C. and J.W. BIRCH. 1959. Locatinggifted children in junior schools: A compar­ison of methods. Exceptional Children 25: 300­304.

RAVEN, J.C. 1965. Raven's Standard ProgressiveMatrices. London: H.K. Lewis.

RENZULLI, j.S. and R. HARTMAN. 1971. Scalefor rating behavioral characteristics of super­ior students. Exceptional Children 38: 243-248.

RENZULLI, j.S., R. HARTMAN and C.M.CALLAHAN. 1971. Teacher of superior chil­dren. Exceptional Children 38: 211-214.

RUST, j.O. and B.D. LOSE. 1980. Screening forgiftedness with Slosson and the scale ratingbehavioral characteristics ofsuperior students.Psychology in the Schools 17: 446-451.

SOLOMON, R. 1979. Identifying gifted children: Acase study - some theoretical considerations.Journal of Application of Educational Studies 8(2):2-7.

WECHSLER, D. 1974. Manual for the WechslerIntelligence Scale for Children-Revised. NewYork: Psychological Corporation.

YARBOROUGH, B.H. and R.A. JOHNSON. 1983.Identifying the gifted: A theory-practice gap.The Gifted Child Quarterly 27: 135-138.

(Received 13 June 1995)

120 Pertanikaj. Soc. Sci. & Hum. Vol. 4 0.2,1996