Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Ricerche di Psicologia/Psychological Research Journal - Open Access

Articoli

No. 2 (2022)

The validation of the italian version of the GRS-S (Pfeiffer-Jarosewich, 2003) – gifted rating scales-school form – Umbria data 2019

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/rip2022oa14577
Submitted
settembre 12, 2022
Published
2022-09-22

Abstract

Giftedness in Italy is still a poorly regulated topic. Moreover, despite the fact that about 5% of the population is gifted, there is no specific compulsory training for teachers. An early identification of the gifted children is therefore desirable. The Gifted Rating Scales (GRS), by Pfeiffer-Jarosewich (2003) are among the most used tools to identify giftedness early, after the IQ test. It is a diagnostically appropriate screening tool, designed to be used simply and effectively by teachers. It is available in two versions, GRS-P (preschool age group 4-6 years) and GRS-S (school age group 6-13 years), and it aims at assessing the teacherʼs perception of the studentʼs level of competence with respect to peers, in different areas: intellectual ability, scholastic ability, artistic talent, creativity, motivation and leadership (the latter is present only in GRS-S).
Given their high psychometric strength, they have been translated and validated in many languages. The validation of the Italian version of the GRS-S was initiated by Beretta-Zanetti on a sample of 449 subjects from Lombardy (northern Italy), to which were added 142 subjects from Rome.
As a part of this research, the GRS-S were administered to a sample of 204 children between 6 and 14 years from Central Italy (Umbria Region), after appropriate teacher training. As such, the sample size from Central Italy was expanded.
The following properties were then investigated: asymmetry, kurtosis, affectivity and corrected item-total correlation. The internal consistency between scales was evaluated through the Cronbach alpha coefficient and the standard error of measurement. The validity was analysed by correlation of the scales and by exploratory factor analysis. The results showed adequate psychometric properties and a satisfactory internal consistency; however, some critical issues emerged (very high values of the Cronbach alpha index and a 5-factor solution in the exploratory factor analysis) which have been extensively discussed and for which some hypotheses have been advanced (for example redundancy of items and interpretative bias of teachers), while considering the limited sample size of this research and recognizing the value of the studies on the same instrument that preceded it.
Therefore, the reliability of the Italian version of the GRS-S is confirmed, and for greater completeness of the data and homogeneity of the sample, it would be advisable to collect data from a sample from schools in Southern Italy.

References

  1. Bailey, C. L. (2011). An examination of the relationships between ego development, Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration, and the behavioral characteristics of gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(3), 208-222. Doi: 10.1177/0016986211412180.
  2. Bao, Y. (2013). On sample skewness and kurtosis. Econometric Reviews, 32(4), 415-448.
  3. Barbaranelli, C. (2007). Analisi dei dati. Milano: LED Edizioni.
  4. Bartolucci, F., Bacci, S., & Gnaldi, M. (2015). Statistical analysis of questionnaires: A unified approach based on R and Stata (Vol. 34). CRC Press.
  5. Baudson, T. G., Fischbach, A., & Preckel, F. (2016). Teacher judgments as measures of childrenʼs cognitive ability: A multilevel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 148-156.
  6. Baudson, T.G., Wollschläger, R. & Preckel, F. (2016). THINK 1-4. Test zur Erfassung der Intelligenz im Grundschulalter. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
  7. Beretta, A., Pfeiffer, S., & Zanetti, M.A. (2017). Gifted Rating Scales-School Form (S. Pfeiffer and T. Jarosewich) Validation of the Italian Version. Ljubljana, ECHA 2014. In: http://echa2014.mib.si/media/filer_public/ab/9d/ab9dad17-9b6a-461c-a9d0-2939b52e80dd/65-beretta.pdf.
  8. Blanca, M. J., Arnau, J., López-Montiel, D., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2013). Skewness and kurtosis in real data samples. Methodology. European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 9(2), 78-84. DOI: 10.1027/1614-2241/a000057.
  9. Cain, M. K., Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K. H. (2017). Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behavior research methods, 49(5), 1716-1735.
  10. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.
  11. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (2013). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology press.
  12. Cristobal, E., Flavián, C. and Guinalíu, M. (2007). Perceived e-service quality (PeSQ): Measurement validation and effects on consumer satisfaction and web site loyalty. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 17(3), 317-340. Doi: 10.1108/09604520710744326.
  13. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica, 16, 297-334.
  14. Desco, M., Navas-Sanchez, F. J., Sanchez-González, J., Reig, S., Robles, O., Franco, C., ... & Arango, C. (2011). Mathematically gifted adolescents use more extensive and more bilateral areas of the fronto-parietal network than controls during executive functioning and fluid reasoning tasks. Neuroimage, 57(1), 281-292. Doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.03.063.
  15. Fabio, R. A. (2019). Italian Standardization of teacher and parent screenings for Identifying Gifted and Talented Children aged from 6 to 13. Journal of Clinical & Developmental Psychology, 1(3).
  16. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage publications.
  17. Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Hachette UK.
  18. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational research methods, 7(2), 191-205.
  19. Hoge, R. D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature. Review of educational research, 59(3), 297-313.
  20. Jabůrek, M., Cígler, H., Valešová, T., & Portešová, Š. (2022). What is the basis of teacher judgment of student cognitive abilities and academic achievement and what affects its accuracy?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69, 102068.
  21. Jin, S. H., Kim, S. Y., Park, K. H., & Lee, K. J. (2007). Differences in EEG between gifted and average students: neural complexity and functional cluster analysis. International Journal of Neuroscience, 117(8), 1167-1184. Doi: 10.1080/00207450600934655.
  22. Kline, P. (2014). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
  23. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
  24. Kuncel, N.R., Hezlett, S.A. (2004). Ones DS. Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: can one construct predict them all?. J Pers Soc Psychol., 86(1),148-61. Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.148.
  25. LaBuda, M. C., DeFries, J. C., & Fulker, D. W. (1987). Genetic and environmental covariance structures among WISC-R subtests: A twin study. Intelligence, 11(3), 233-244. Doi: 10.1016/0160-2896(87)90008-0.
  26. Lee, D., & Pfeiffer, S. I. (2006). The reliability and validity of a Koreantranslated version of the Gifted Rating Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(3), 210-224. Doi: 10.1177/0734282906287829.
  27. Li, H., Lee, D., Pfeiffer, S. I., Kamata, A., Kumtepe, A. T., & Rosado, J. (2009). Measurement invariance of the Gifted Rating Scales-School Form across five cultural groups. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(3), 186-198. Doi: 10.1037/a0017382.
  28. Li, H., Pfeiffer, S. I., Petscher, Y., Kumtepe, A. T., & Mo, G. (2008). Validation of the Gifted Rating Scales-school form in China. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 160-169. Doi: 10.1177/0016986208315802.
  29. Machts, N., Kaiser, J., Schmidt, F. T. C., & Moller, J. (2016). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 19, 85-103. Doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.06.003.
  30. Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International journal of testing, 5(2), 159-168.
  31. Pfeiffer, S.I., Petscher, Y., Jarosewich, T. (2007). The Gifted Rating Scale-School Form: Analysis of the standardization sample based on age, gender, race, and diagnostic efficiency. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 39-50. Doi: 10.1177/0016986206296658.
  32. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
  33. Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, T. (2003). GRS: Gifted Rating Scales. Psychological Corporation.
  34. Pfeiffer, S. I., Kumtepe, A., & Rosado, J. (2006). Gifted identification: Measuring change in a student’s profile of abilities using the Gifted Rating Scales. The School Psychologist, 60(3), 106-111.
  35. Pfeiffer, S.I., Soldivera, S., & Norton, J. (1992). A Consumerʼs guide to mental health outcome measures. Villanova, PA: Devereux Foundations.
  36. Posthuma, D., et al. (2002). The association between brain volume and intelligence is of genetic origin. Nature neuroscience, 5(2), 83. Doi: 10.1038/nn0202-83.
  37. Prescott, J., Gavrilescu, M., Cunnington, R., OʼBoyle, M. W., & Egan, G. F. (2010). Enhanced brain connectivity in math-gifted adolescents: An fMRI study using mental rotation. Cognitive Neuroscience, 1(4), 277-288. Doi: 10.1080/17588928.2010.506951.
  38. Renati, R., and M. A. Zanetti (2012). L’universo poco conosciuto della plusdotazione. Psicologia e scuola, 23, 18-24.
  39. Revelle, W. (2021). Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/psych/index.html.
  40. Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative. Oxford: Capstone.
  41. Rosado, J. I. (2008). Validation of the spanish version of the Gifted Rating Scales. The Florida State University.
  42. Rosado, J. I., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Petscher, Y. (2008). The reliability and validity of a Spanish translated version of the gifted rating scales. Gifted and talented international, 23(1), 105-114. Doi: 10.1080/15332276.2008.11673517.
  43. Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How People Make Their Own Environments: A Theory of Genotype Environment Effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424-435. Doi: 10.2307/1129703.
  44. Sedgwick, P. (2014). Multiple hypothesis testing and Bonferroni’s correction. BMJ, 349.
  45. Shahzad, S., & Begume, N. (2010). Level of depression in intellectually gifted secondary school children. Gifted and Talented International, 25(2), 91-98. Doi: 10.1080/15332276.2010.11673572.
  46. Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Giftedness as developing expertise: A theory of the interface between high abilities and achieved excellence. High Ability Studies, 12(2), 159-179. Doi: 10.1080/13598130120084311.
  47. Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in science education, 48(6), 1273-1296.
  48. Tannenbaum, A. J. (2000). A history of giftedness in school and society. International handbook of giftedness and talent, 2, 23-53.
  49. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbachʼs alpha. International journal of medical education, 2, 53-55. Doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
  50. Thompson, L. A., & Plomin, R. (1993). Genetic influence on cognitive ability. International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent, 103-113.
  51. Urhahne, D., & Wijnia, L. (2021). A review on the accuracy of teacher judgments. Educational Research Review, 32, 100374.
  52. Vaske, J. J., Beaman, J., & Sponarski, C. C. (2017). Rethinking internal consistency in Cronbachʼs alpha. Leisure sciences, 39(2), 163-173.
  53. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Sage Publications, Inc.
  54. Westberg, K. L. (2012). Using teacher rating scales in the identification of students for gifted services. Identification: The theory and practice of identifying students for gifted and talented education services, 363-379.
  55. Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior research methods, 51(1), 409-428.
  56. Zanetti, M. A. (2016). Una doppia difficoltà in classe: i bambini ad alto potenziale. Journal of Applied Radical Behavior Analysis, 16-21.
  57. Zanetti, M. A. (2017). Alto Potenziale. In M. A. Zanetti (Ed.), Bambini e ragazzi ad alto potenziale. Una guida per educatori e famiglie (pp. 19-69), Roma: Carocci.
  58. Zanetti, M. A., Renati, R., & Beretta, A. (2013). La plusdotazione: introduzione. Ricerche di psicologia, 2(2), 295-299.
  59. Zanetti, M.A., & Beretta, A. (2017). La validazione italiana delle Gifted Rating Scales-School Form. QI Questioni e Idee in Psicologia, 44, in https://qi.hogrefe.it/rivista/la-validazione-italiana-delle-gifted-rating-scales.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...