Development & Validation of a Giftedness identification instrument for Primary school pupils

Journal of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria Volume 46, Issue 1

(July2011)

JSTAN

Journal of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria Volume 46, Issue 1 (July 2011)

JSTAN

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE TEACHERS

ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA Volume 46, Issue 1 (July 2011)

The Journal is produced by Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN).

The Science Teachers Association of Nigeria reserves the copyright of this

Journal


(July2011)

ISSN: 0795-7270.

Direct enquiries to:

The Executive Director

The Science Teachers Association of Nigeria

The STAN Place, Kwali

PMB 777, Garki, Abuja

Website: www.stanonline.org

Email: [email protected]

Prof. Okechukwu S. Abonyi

Editor-in-Chief

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.stanonline.org/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


(July2011)

SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA

Executive Board

President

Dr. Prince Okorie

Vice President

Elder Ezekiel David

General Secretary

Dr Adebola Ifamuyiwa

National Treasurer

Hadiza Yero

Publicity Secretary

Oladeji Samson

Curriculum Development Co-ordinator

Mr Ayodele Akanle

Science Fair Co-ordinator

Mr. Benson Ugwoke

Editor-in-Chief

Prof. Okechukwu S. Abonyi

Immediate Past President

Dr. Lawrence Achimugu

Immediate Past General Secretary

Alhaji Umaru Mohammed

Executive Director

Dr. Ben B. Akpan

Trustees

Emeritus Professor Obioha Nwanna

Professor E Ayotunde Yoloye

Professor Aminu Dorayi

Dr. Prince Okorie

Dr Adebola Ifamuyiwa


(July2011)

EDITORIAL BOARD

Editor-in-Chief

Okechukwu S. Abonyi

Department of Science Education, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki

Editors

Nsikak-Abasi Udofia

Department of Education Foundation, University of Uyo, Uyo

Uchenna Nzewi

Department of Science Education, University of Nigeria, Nsukka

Imo E Umoinyang

Institute of Education, University of Calabar

Ayodele Akanle

Science and Technology Department, Ministry of Education, Akure

Umaru Mohammed

Sokoto State College of Educatiion, Sokoto

EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Professor Peter Okebukola

Lagos State University, Ojo Nigeria

Professor Maman Wasagu

Usman Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, Nigeria

Professor Jack Holbrook

University of Tartu, Estonia

Dr Decian Kennedy

University College, Cork, Ireland

Professor Sudhakar Agarkar

Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, Mumbai, India


(July2011)

Editorial

The Journal of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (JSTAN) is a

biannual journal of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN). The

Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN) was established in 1957 to

promote co-operation among the Science Teachers in Nigeria with a view to

raising the standard of science education in the country, to provide a forum for

discussion by science teachers on matters of common interest in addition to

helping science teachers keep in touch with development in science and its

application to industry and commerce

In pursuance of these objectives the Journal of the Science Teachers

Association of Nigeria (JSTAN) focuses on disseminating Science,

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education research

information to teachers, policy makers, researchers and all stakeholders in

national development.

This edition (vol 46 Issue 2) focused on pedagogy, instrumentation, gender

issues and a wide range of research findings in science education. Also in this

edition is a special focus on conduct of chemistry practicals.

We remain grateful to the Education Trust Fund (ETF) for their sponsorship

of this edition.

Okechukwu S Abonyi

Editor-in-Chief


(July2011)

CONTENTS OF JSTAN VOLUME 46, ISSUE 2 (DECEMBER, 2011)

Articles 1. An Examination of Types and Usefulness of Analogies Generated by Upper

Primary School Students – a case Study

Rawatee Maharaj-Sharma, The University of the West Indies, St.

Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies................................. 8

2. Efect of Interaction Pattern on Achievement in biology Among secondary

School Students

Nwagbo C. R and A. U. Okoro, Dept. of Science Education,

University of Nigeria, Nsukka…………………………………… 21

3. Development and Validation of Giftedness Identification Test for Primary

Schools.

Ikoro Stanley, Ebonyi State College of Education, Ikwo and

Okechukwu S. Abonyi, Department of Science Education, Ebonyi

State University, Abakaliki ………………………………………. 33

4. Effect of Framing and Team Assisted Individualized Instructional Strategies

on Students‟ Achievement in mathematics.

Awofala Adeneye O. A and Nneji Love Majorleen

Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council,

Abuja……………………………………………………………… 60

5. Towards a New Paradigm of Teaching Mathematics in Nigerian Universities:

The role of Mathematics Educators

Godwin Alo Odili, Department of Mathematicsl Education, Rivers

State University of Education…………….. ……………………… 72

6. Design for Manufacturing Paint Brush

P. A. Nwobasi Department of Technology and Vocational

Education, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki…………………..…….. 82

7. Enhancing the Future of Children in Mathematics, Science and Technology

for Sustainable Development

Kurumeh, M. S and Chianson, M. M Department of Curriculum &

Teaching, Benue State University, Makurdi……………………… 90


(July2011)

8. Gender Mainstreaming: A Strategy for Promoting Gender Equality in Science

and Technology Education.

Josephine Okoli, Department of Science Education, Nnamdi

Azikiwe University, Awka ……………………………………… 98

9. Professional Development of Science Educators Towards Effective

Collaboration

Okonkwo Charity Akuadi and Ikpe Adakole National Open

University of Nigeria, Lagos …………………………………… 108

10. Status of Application of Instructional Technology by Teachers in the Design

and Implementation of Lessons

Uche, D. Asogwa, Tessy, O. Ofoegbu, and Fred, A. Okwo

Faculty of Education, Universty of Nigeria, Nsukka……………… 119

11. Strategies for Effective Conduct of Practical Chemistry Works In Senior

Secondary Schools in Nigeria

Lawrence Achimugu, St. Peter College, Idah……………………. 130

Journal of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria Volume 46, Issue1

( July 2011)

Development and Validation of Giftedness Identification Test

for Primary Schools

Ikoro Stanley Ibekwe

&s

Okechukwu S Abonyi

ABSTRACT

This study developed and validated a Giftedness Identification Test for

Primary Schools. Three research questions and one null hypothesis

guided the study. The sample of the study consisted of 106 primary

schools in Ebonyi State, from where 1148 pupils were drawn. The

Giftedness Identification Test for Primary Schools (GITPS) is designed

in a four point scale. Factor analysis using the principal component with

varimax rotation was used to answer research question one, while

Cronbach alpha was used to answer research question two. For

research question three, mean and standard deviation were employed

whereas the hypothesis was tested at 0.05 level of significance using t-

test of difference between independent sample mean. The results showed

that the instrument is valid and reliable. The findings also indicate that

the instrument is relatively stable across gender.

.

Key Words: Giftedness, Factor analysis, Principal component, validity, Reliability

Introduction There has been a global trend towards educational reforms to include human

resource development, as a function of education and human capital formation.

Human capital formation refers to the process of acquiring and increasing the

number of persons who have the skills, education, and experience for the

economic growth and development of a nation (Ibe, 2008). The reforms in

education in Nigeria in recent times focused on the primary and junior

secondary education sub sectors which is known as universal basic education

(UBE) programme. It covers a period of nine (9) years, from primary one to

junior secondary three (3). It was launched on 30th

September, 1999 by Ex

president Olusegun Obasanjo. Determined to use education to achieve

development, Nigeria participated in a number of international conferences.

Such conferences include that of education held in 1990 at Jomtein in

Thailand, which ended with a declaration of education for all (EFA), and the

united nations millennium summit held in New York in September, 2000

which also declared the eight millennium development goals (united nations,


(July2011)

2005). The declarations from these international conferences recaptured

Nigeria‟s strong belief in education as an instrument per excellence, thus

affecting the revision of national policy on education.

Education in Nigeria is an instrument “par excellence” for effecting

national development (Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2004). In other words,

education shall continue to be highly rated in the national development plans,

because it is the most important instrument of change. Any fundamental

change in the intellectual and social outlook of any society has to be preceded

by educational revolution. In recognition of the role of education in individual

development, the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004), states that, educational

activities shall be centered on the learner for maximum self development and

self fulfillment. The education of the individual starts from primary school.

Primary education is the education given in institutions for children aged 6 to

11years plus. Since the rest of the education system is built upon it primary

level is the key to the success or failure of the whole system. For this reason,

the Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004) sets some goals for primary education.

The goals includes to:

(a) Inculcate permanent literacy and numeracy, and ability to communicate

effectively

(b) Lay a sound bases for scientific and reflective thinking

(c) Give citizenship education as a basis for effective participation in and

contribution to the life of the society.

(d) Mould the character and develop sound attitude and morals in the child;

(e) Develop in the child the ability to adapt to the child‟s changing

environment,

(f) Give the child the opportunities for developing manipulative skills that

will enable the child function effectively in the society within the limits of

the child‟s capacity; and

(g) Provide the child with basic tools for further educational advancements,

including preparation for trades and crafts of the locality.

In pursuance of these goals, the Federal Republic of Nigeria made primary

education tuition free, universal and compulsory and also restate its

interest in special education. This is to take special care of the “pupils with

special needs”. Such as pupils with various impairment or disability, and

the gifted (FRN, 2004).

One of the problems of educational system seems to be lack of

planning for the gifted children in our primary schools. This may be as a result

of not knowing the number of the gifted due to lack of identification

instrument. The federal government of Nigeria, seems to address the problem,

when it states that, among other objectives of special education, is the


( July 2011)

provision of opportunities for exceptionally gifted children to develop their

talents, natural endowment/traits at their own pace in the interest of the

nations‟ economic and technological development. Unfortunately, this

objective has remained on paper and has not been translated into practical

terms in our primary schools. Unlike the developed nations, reported from the

Gifted Children‟s Association of British Columbia (2002), states that early

childhood educators are uniquely positioned and equipped to recognize,

support and care for many gifted children before they are admitted to more

formal learning programme.

Giftedness could be conceived as possessing potential abilities, that

can be demonstrated and which must give evidence of high performance

capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, specific academic or

leadership ability, (Nwaogu, Achalu, Ngwuoke, and Okobiah, 1992). They

further define gifted child as one who possesses potential abilities that can be

demonstrated and which must give evidence of high performance (Nwaogu et

al 1992). Gifted children are exceptional and unique children because they

manifest very high cognitive ability, and creativity in thinking and

productivity. It denotes inherent potentials which are naturally endowed, and

are demonstrated in high performance capability in school and out of school.

In another perspective Ibe (2009) states that the gifted have different

emotional intensities and combinations of what he called “over excitabilities”.

He further stressed that over excitability is the unusual intensity of the gifted,

as well as the several ways in which they look and behave oddly, when

compared to norms. He as well identified five areas of high manifestation to

include, physical expression, imagination, sensual or high sensory, intellectual

and emotional intensity. Gifted Children‟s Association of British Columbia,

GCABC (2008) asserts that: Giftedness is asynchronous development in

which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create

inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm.

This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity. The uniqueness of

the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires modifications in

teaching and counseling in order for them to develop.

The above statement implies that these gifted children develop in an uneven

manner, significantly out of developmental step with their age peers. In other

words, a gifted child could be one whose skills and abilities make him stand

out above others in school and out of school tasks. He exhibits high level of

proficiency in all areas of endeavors. Therefore, for those in school, they need

an enrichment or modification in the normal educational programmes for their

maximum development. Succinctly put, gifted children are on a

developmentally different schedule from infancy.


(July2011)

This places the gifted children out of sync with expected developmental stages

internally and externally. Programmes, which anticipate limited powers of

concentration, and break complicated subjects into simple pieces for children

to understand, may stress gifted children. Sequences may be too simple for

minds, which thrive on complexity and challenge. Able to process huge

quantities of information rapidly, gifted children may find nothing to interest

or engage them in regular programs and may act out.

It is in view of the above statement, that Stephanie Tolan, author and gifted

advocate, presents a wonderful analogy for this process. She likens it to;

Feeding an elephant with grass, one blade at a time. Not only

will the elephant die of malnutrition, before you can get

sufficient food (grass) into him, he is unlikely to realize that

you are trying to feed him at all. That single blade of grass is

simply too small for him to notice (Stephen, 2008:54).

The above analogy is very important, if the future of the gifted children is not

truncated through normalization of regular primary school progammes. Both

teachers, parents and adults, who are unable to understand the process of

gifted children, often discredit their abilities and the way they do their things.

Quite often the gifted are forced to work and solve problems in a way that is

alien to them. They are not comfortable at times; working in a fashion or

manner many people are used to. Their peers and teachers may accuse them

falsely because they are unable to understand the behavioral patterns of the

gifted, and this may cause the gifted children to “shutdown” in an attempt to

become “normal”.

Realizing the need for early identification of the gifted children. Lesley,

(2009) observes that, numerous young gifted children experience difficulty

when entering formal schooling. He stressed that observation of their early

behaviour is extremely helpful for proper identification and creation of

appropriate learning programmes for these out of step, asynchronous learners.

He also warned that failure to identify, recognize and meet their needs may

lead to some of them becoming; argumentative, clinically depressed, among a

wide range of other behaviours.

According to Siegler (1994) most gifted make everything complicated,

and are “too” everything: too sensitive, too intense… and too much for other

people. He cautioned that their cognitive variability make them not to fit in

with others (Siegler 1998). Giftedness is found in both boys and girls, because

it is naturally endowed on people by God. According to Silverman and Miller

(2007), giftedness is colour-blind, is found in equal proportions, and is

distributed across all socio-economic levels. The above statements imply that


( July 2011)

giftedness is found in all the races (nations) irrespective of the colour, gender

or affluence. The basic issue of concern is the ability to identifygiftedness

where it occurs. Unfortunately, our primary school teacher lacks the nitty-

gritty, and the instrument for giftedness identification. The instrument they can

think of is the pupils‟ academic report cards, yet these report cards

(examination scores) are most often bias and lack credibility.

Since the gifted children see the world differently, because of the complexity

of their thought processes and emotional intensity, it is essential for them to be

identified early in life. It is time we take gifted children out of the closet of

normal school programme and separate them entirely from the average

intelligent children (Joseph, 1992) and (Johnson, 1993). We shall now

recognize, value and nurture them in the schools and in the society for self

reliance, state and national development.

It is on these premise that the researcher deems it necessary to develop

and validate Giftedness Identification Test, which the teachers and educators

can readily adapt or adopt for selecting these children for special programme.

Purpose of the study

The study is aimed at developing and Validating Giftedness

Identification Test for primary schools. Specifically, the purpose of the study

is to;

1. Ascertain the validity of the items of the GITPS

2. Establish the reliability of the GITPS

3. Determine the stability of the GITPS with respect to gender.

Research questions:

To facilitate the study, the following questions were formulated.

1. What is the validity of the GITPS?

2. What is the reliability of the GITPS?

3. What is the influence of gender on the GITPS?

Hypothesis: The study was guided by this hypothesis, which was tested at 0.05 level of

significance:

HO1: Gender will not significantly influence pupils‟ response to the GITPS.


(July2011)

Research method

This study adopted an instrumentation research design. The population of the

study, comprised of all the primary three (3) pupils in the 1059 public primary

schools in the three Education zone of Ebonyi State, numbering forty one

thousand and forty six (41046) pupils. This is made up of Ebony North

Education zone, 450 schools with 7792 males, 7922 females and a total of

15,714 pupils. Ebonyi central zone 329 schools, 5166 males, 5922 females and

a total of 11087 pupils, and Ebonyi South Education zone 280 schools, 7124

males 7121 females and total of 14245 pupils. This summed up to 1059

primary schools, 20,082 males and 20,964 females (Ebonyi State Universal

Basic Education Board 2010). Primary three pupils were selected because they

were within the appropriate age level, 8+years plus as recommended by the

Wechsler pre-school and primary scale of intelligence (WPPSI).

Equally, primary three is the last stage of the junior primary school, and a

transition class to upper primary.

The initial sample for the study comprised of 41,046 primary three pupils

drawn from primary schools in the three education zones of Ebonyi State. The

final sample (after preliminary identification of the gifted) came down to 1148

pupils. A check list was used for preliminary identification of pupils who

showed signs of giftedness.

The instrument used for data collection was the Giftedness

Identification Test for Primary Schools (GITPS) developed by the researcher.

The test instrument has part one and two. Part one sought information on the

background of respondents (pupils), while part two consisted of 70 items of

Likert-type, arranged to test all aspect of giftedness. The following constructs

or subscales of giftedness were taken into consideration during items

development.

They include:

A. Verbal ability measure.

B. Quantitative ability measure-

C. Perceptual ability measure

D. Creative ability measure

D. Leadership ability measure

E. Visual ability measure

F. Psychomotor ability measure.

A total of seventy (70) items were developed.

Below is the table of the number of items in each subscale of the Giftedness

Identification Test for Primary Schools (GITPS).


( July 2011)

S/N GITPS Sub Scale Number of Items

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Verbal Ability Measure

Quantitative Ability Measure

Perceptual Ability Measure

Creative ability measure

Leadership ability measure

Visual ability measure

Psychomotor ability measure

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

TOTAL 70 Items

After the pre-tepreliminary test of the instrument, and modification in line

with the validators‟ suggestions the instrument was administered to the pupils

using the class teacherst who served as research assistants. After the

preliminary assessment, ten (10) items were dropped leaving behind sixty (60)

items which were used for the main fieldwork.

The research assistants and the class teachers were trained on the

following:

1. To guide the pupils by reading clearly the instructions only.

2. Not to answer the questions for the pupils.

3. Not to allow the pupils to move about in the hall or classroom

during the test administration.

4. Not to allow them copy from each other.

One and a half (1½) hour was allowed for the test. This was to accommodate

some minutes that were used to read and explain the instructions to the pupils.

The items were marked, and the scores from the instrument formed the data

used for the analysis. It is important to note that the items were designed in

such a way that they were scored nondichotomously. This informed the use of

construct validation procedure.

The research questions one was answered using Factor analysis with varimax

rotation, while researches question two was answered using Cronbach Alpha.

Research question three was answered using Mean and Standard deviation.

The hypothesis was tested on cluster basis using the t-test of difference

between means of independent samples.

RESULTS

This chapter presents the results of data analyses based on the research

questions and hypothesis that guided the study.

The results of the analyses are presented in order of the research questions and

hypothesis.


(July2011)

Research Questions 1

What is the validity of the items of the Giftedness Identification Instrument for

Nigerian Primary Schools (GIINPS) test items?

The GIINPS has seven sub-scales or sub-sets. The are Verbal Ability

(VA), Quantitative Ability (QA), Perceptual Ability (PA), Creative Ability

(CA), Leadership Ability (LA), Visual Ability (VA) and Psychomotor Ability

(PA) Test items. Factor analysis with varimax rotation was used. The

principal component analysis (PC) extracted nine (9) factors.

Summary of the principal factor loading for the 60 items of Giftedness

Identification Instrument for Nigerian Primary Schools (GIINPS) is presented

in Table 1.

Table 1: Varimax Rotated factor loading of the items of the GIINPS IT

EM

S

FACTORS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 -.02008 -.00961 .05098 -.12247 .00534 .02992 .02591 -.05529 .02723

2 .00468 .04979 .00086 .06099 .85906 -.05859 -.13718 -.18562 .02664

3 -.06586 .09629 .07993 -.03819 .36488 .08829 .03245 -.13404 -.03821 4 -.07550 -.08572 .08782 -.16126 .43071 -.14408 -.06537 .18610 -.30142

5 .92131 .30973 .11159 .04594 .40733 -.05258 .01433 -.02787 .04508

6 .17717 .20205 .10155 -.04553 .71446 -.01842 .08666 .02699 .01703 7 .07085 .30174 -.01743 .05522 .42206 -.07203 -.01364 -.00341 .09526

8 .23031 .30222 .11698 .00126 .37749 -.07416 .01522 -.03121 .02181

9 .08020 .30496 .06588 .44236 .09019 -.07521 .03560 .00320 .04628 10 .79972 .22073 .01226 .05585 .45333 .01154 .05211 .02247 .02354

11 .00622 .23766 .12021 .03295 .11390 -.04755 .00136 .04103 -.06944

12 .29000 .24031 .01805 .77341 -.00285 .10966 .12813 .06071 .00368 13 .11564 .19441 -.00355 .51656 .17119 -.14295 .10320 .01531 -.28753

14 .16441 .32577 .13785 .55019 .18390 -.04774 .01883 -.07222 .03072

15 .24488 .24894 .09471 .60324 .11487 -.02620 .00996 -.04873 -.01973 16 .01910 .26222 .11641 .66501 .11511 -.06957 .01028 -.03625 .03349

17 .31834 .22215 -.23520 .62386 -.02364 .07596 .03838 -.04032 .08011

18 .38193 .01926 .25003 .17146 .06236 .14454 .05341 .12216 .03859 19 .77336 .09502 .07934 .24341 .16951 -.03035 -.00072 -.04174 -.03994

20 .57787 .31261 .19314 -.07462 .14597 -.13128 .05665 -.10166 -.09159

21 .46218 .18632 .15229 .19520 -.10923 -.21785 .14413 -.05609 .11587

22 .55078 .30640 .23122 .12051 -.02214 -.10469 .04173 .00320 -.12704

23 .73622 .28451 .07332 .18597 .03105 -.04272 .08153 .04449 -.02516

24 .61811 .31972 -.06079 .15917 -.13858 .00206 .69771 .00037 -.00889 25 .69247 .18941 .00135 .14332 .00119 -.09170 .02586 .00971 -.20157

26 .02267 .30343 .69934 .15060 .01876 .01138 .24333 -.02466 -.01240

27 .25120 .31785 .43643 .11239 .09216 -.04329 .04863 -.05799 -.03144 28 .11388 .21028 .37320 .30909 -.10110 .12443 .03947 .18660 .05029

29 .28016 .31443 .52788 .04624 .09617 -.08496 .02415 -.03331 .00865

30 .25386 .32692 .67721 .03422 .10345 -.08950 .00551 -.04655 .02751 31 .08345 .28854 .50814 .07206 .08415 .08868 .01288 .02720 .06292

32 .23784 .22510 .39516 -.08133 .08428 .02511 -.00288 .09429 -.01711

33 .07836 .20972 .14810 -.03733 .02244 .03625 -.06551 -.04729 .09112 34 .14872 .26858 .12973 -.04310 .00493 .02178 -.04493 -.00173 .09231

35 .21095 .19275 .45335 -.10633 .08592 -.15986 .07914 -.08790 .05074

36 .11658 .18600 .14637 .03305 -.02155 .61120 -.09204 -.01987 .11960 37 .00470 .26407 .12140 .01366 .02205 .42028 -.02720 .00512 .08659

38 .83332 .16263 .13512 .66479 .03296 .61973 -.10832 .01134 .08415


( July 2011)

39 .90590 .24491 .11663 .00519 .05012 .41543 -.02440 -.02386 .12480 40 .90785 .26124 .08978 -.00604 .05607 .63911 -.02359 -.05271 .10265

41 .09266 .24023 .13843 .01925 .03292 .51708 -.02556 -.02732 .13646

42 .21745 .28634 .12642 .00398 .07372 .72179 -.01643 -.05029 .07786 43 .32742 .31330 .10299 .03727 .09473 .83502 .01693 -.02342 .04791

44 .01194 .69357 .09981 .01085 .08446 .03171 -.00497 -.04523 .06505

45 .12891 .39905 .11539 .02859 .09379 -.02293 .00770 -.03161 .05630 46 .00880 .45943 .11589 .03052 .09950 -.03229 .00770 -.02922 .04866

47 .21579 .39644 .12421 .01435 .08513 .00045 -.00135 -.03513 .06720

48 .12261 .37748 .11372 .02163 .09674 -.01152 -.00542 -.03455 .05279

49 .06601 .63747 .11461 .04945 .07068 -.00090 .01200 -.01265 .03561

50 .25085 .39562 .04806 .05511 .08166 .03477 .05031 .01325 .06070

51 .17278 .40462 -.06868 .16102 .09646 .21957 .07988 .13100 .16781 52 .11504 .08609 -.11852 .17888 .16756 .11721 .55630 .16297 .17507

53 .32478 .16040 -.11013 -.10962 .10212 .11222 .67566 .01019 .30059

54 .14367 .22362 -.01873 .10018 .27745 .03251 .72077 .13055 .27711 55 .28490 .06955 .10030 .05310 .26614 .06582 .74802 .01179 .16004

56 .30300 .07166 .10619 .00921 .05415 -.07658 .39047 -.06738 .01380

57 .31684 .13162 .09037 .04728 -.03382 .05267 .51820 .08734 -.19091 58 .32502 .05880 .03268 .12124 -.08039 .06736 .55897 -.01106 -.24385

59 .12990 .09720 .07287 -.02757 -.06304 .02285 .51491 -.15505 .04183

60 .24304 .24822 -.00202 .04338 -.04528 -.05345 .78429 -.22380 .07359

The summary of factor analysis shown in Table 1, revealed that out of 60

items of the GIINPS instrument, seven (7) were loaded on factor 1. These are

items 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 and 25. Another eight items (items 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,

49, 50 and 51) were loaded on factor 2. In the same vein items 26, 27, 28, 29,

30, 31 32 and 35 (eight items) were loaded on factor 3. The table also revealed

that six other items (items 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17) were loaded on factor 4

whereas items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 (six items) were loaded on factor 5. On the

other hand, items 36, 37, 41, 42 and 43 (five items) were loaded on factor 6

while nine other items (items 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60) were

loaded on factor 7. As could be seen in the table, factors 8 and 9 had no items

loaded on them and were therefore ignored. As further revealed in the table,

items 5, 9, 19, 24, 38, 39 and 40 are said to be factorially complex because

they had loadings of up to 0.35 on more than one factor. These items were also

discarded. In the same vein, items 1, 11, 33 and 34 were also discarded

because they did not attain a loading of up to 0.35 on any factor.

A total of eleven (11) items were dropped and the remaining forty nine

(49) items were retained. The forty nine (49) items are;

Items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26,

27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,

50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60


(July2011)

Research Question 2

What is the reliability index of the Giftedness Identification Instrument for

Nigerian Primary School (GINPS)?

The surviving forty nine (49) items of Giftedness Identification Instrument for

Nigerian Primary Schools were subjected to test of internal consistency using

the Cronbach Alpha. For this test of reliability, the covariance matrix was

presented for the seven subscales. Summary of result is presented in table 2:

Table 2: Reliability analysis of the Giftedness Identification Instrument for

Nigerian Primary Schools (GIINPS) using Scale (Alpha)

Subscale 1: Verbal Ability Test (VAT) Statistics

for scale

Mean

16.4408

Variance

7.9677

Std Dev.

2.8227

No of

variables

6

Item

means

Mean

2.7401

Minimum

2.3301

Maximum

3.0540

Range

.7239

Max/Min

1.3107

Variance

.0673

Item

variance

Mean

.9457

Minimum

.7552

Maximum

1.1228

Range

.3676

Max/Min

1.4868

Variance

.0177

Inter-item

Covarianc

es

Mean

.0764

Minimum

-.2027

Maximum

.6209

Range

.8236

Max/Min

-3.0636

Variance

.0741

Inter-

items

correlatio

ns

Mean

.0908

Minimum

-.1969

Maximum

.7593

Range

.9561

Max/Min

-3.8567

Variance

.0920

Reliability coefficients 6 items

Alpha = .6454 standardized item alpha = .6746

For this sub scale the instrument yielded a reliability index of 0.64. This

indicates that the instrument is reliable.

Sub scale 2. Quantitative Ability Test (QAT) Statistics for

scale

Mean

16.4599

Variance

23.5633

Std Dev.

4.8542

No of

variables

6

Item means Mean

2.7433

Minimum

2.4834

Maximum

2.8807

Range

.3972

Max/Min

1.599

Variance

.0183

Item variance Mean

.9920

Minimum

.8061

Maximum

1.3816

Range

.5754

Max/Min

1.7138

Variance

.0462

Inter-item

Covariances

Mean

.5870

Minimum

.4842

Maximum

.6527

Range

.1685

Max/Min

1.3480

Variance

.0030

Inter-items

correlations

Mean

.6049

Minimum

.4741

Maximum

.7458

Range

.2718

Max/Min

1.5732

Variance

.0065


( July 2011)



The reliability index of this sub scale is 0.89 and could be adjudged to be high.

Sub scale 3. Perceptual Ability Test (PAT) Statistics for

scale

Mean

18.735

Variance

24.8906

Std Dev.

4.9890

No of

variables 7

Item means Mean

2.6765

Minimum

2.4730

Maximum

3.0357

Range

.5627

Max/Mi

n

1.2275

Variance

.0362

Item variance Mean

1.1197

Minimum

.8313

Maximum

1.3480

Range

.5167

Max/Mi

n

1.6215

Variance

.0285

Inter-item

Covariances

Mean

.4060

Minimum

.2678

Maximum

.5579

Range

.2901

Max/Mi

n

2.0834

Variance

.0080

Inter-items

correlations

Mean

.3727

Minimum

.2190

Maximum

.5749

Range

.3559

Max/Mi

n

2.6247

Variance

.0118


Alpha = 7993 Standardized item alpha = .8062

The sub scale yielded an alpha of 0.79

Sub scale 4: Creative Ability Test (CAT) Statistics for

scale

Mean

22.7387

Variance

38.1705

Std Dev.

6.1782

No of

variables

8

Item means Mean

2.8423

Minimum

2.6899

Maximum

2.9608

Range

.2709

Max/Min

1.1007

Variance

.0092

Item

variance

Mean

.8799

Minimum

.8101

Maximum

.9854

Range

.1752

Max/Min

1.2163

Variance

.0037

Inter-item

Covariances

Mean

.5559

Minimum

.3411

Maximum

.7542

Range

.4131

Max/Min

2.2113

Variance

.0109

Inter-items

correlations

Mean

.6378

Minimum

.3541

Maximum

.9194

Range

.5653

Max/Min

2.5966

Variance

.0204


Alpha = .9321s standardized item alpha = .9337

The items in this subscale yielded a reliability index of 0.93 which also imply

a high reliability index.


(July2011)

Subscale 5: Leadership Ability Test (LAT) Statistics

for scale

Mean

14.5383

Variance

20.3551

Std Dev.

4.5117

No of

variables 5

Item means Mean

2.9077

Minimum

2.8894

Maximum

2.9390

Range

.0497

Max/Min

1.0172

Variance

.0004

Item

variance

Mean

.9383

Minimum

.8435

Maximum

1.2790

Range

.4355

Max/Min

1.5163

Variance

.0364

Inter-item

Covariance

s

Mean

.7832

Minimum

.7607

Maximum

.8197

Range

.0589

Max/Min

1.0775

Variance

.0004

Inter-items

correlations

Mean

.8523

Minimum

.7263

Maximum

.9634

Range

.2371

Max/Min

1.3265

Variance

.0102

Reliability coefficients 5items


For this sub scale, the instrument yielded a reliability index of 0.96 which is

also high.

Subscale 6: Visual Ability Test (VAT) Statistics for scale Mean

23.2422

Variance

49.4182

Std Dev.

7.0298

No of

variables

8

Item means Mean

2.9053

Minimum

2.7840

Maximum

2.9364

Range

.1524

Max/Min

1.0548

Variance

.0026

Item variance Mean

.8494

Minimum

.8373

Maximum

.8656

Range

.0283

Max/Min

1.0338

Variance

.0001

Inter-item

Covariances

Mean

.7611

Minimum

.6156

Maximum

.8396

Range

.2241

Max/Min

1.3640

Variance

.0063

Inter-items

correlations

Mean

.8962

Minimum

.7244

Maximum

.9974

Range

.2730

Max/Min

1.3769

Variance

.0089


Alpha = .9857 Standardized item alpha = .9857

The instrument of this subscale yielded an alpha of 0.98

Subscale 7: Psychomotor Ability Test (PAT) Statistics for scale Mean

25.0958

Variance

41.4067

Std Dev.

6.4348

No of

variables

9

Item means Mean

2.7884

Minimum

2.7091

Maximum

2.8345

Range

.1254

Max/Min

1.0463

Variance

.0017

Item variance Mean

.8520

Minimum

.7682

Maximum

.9496

Range

.1815

Max/Min

1.2362

Variance

.0042

Inter-item

Covariances

Mean

.4686

Minimum

.3511

Maximum

.5760

Range

.2249

Max/Min

1.6407

Variance

.0032

Inter-items

correlations

Mean

.5512

Minimum

.4117

Maximum

.7017

Range

.2900

Max/Min

1.7043

Variance

.0043




( July 2011)

For this scale, the instrument yielded a reliability index of 0.91

Research Question 3

What is the Influence of Gender on the Giftedness Identification Instrument for

Nigeria Primary Schools (GIINPS)?

The scores of males and females pupils on the GIINPS were separated to a

simple descriptive procedure using mean and standard deviation. Summary of

the test is presented in tables 3:

Table 3: Mean and Standard deviation of male and female scores in each item

of the GIINPS Items 1. Male N = 631 2. Female = 517

SD SD

1 2.44 .87 2.39 .83

2 3.00 .97 3.11 .97

3 2.60 .93 2.55 .96

4 2.27 1.08 2.40 1.02

5 3.03 .89 2.84 .94

6 2.79 1.03 2.63 1.03

7 2.86 .92 2.72 .95

8 3.00 .84 2.87 .89

9 3.08 .89 2.94 .95

10 2.88 1.00 2.72 1.02

11 3.05 .91 2.79 1.01

12 2.87 .93 2.72 .98

13 2.56 1.18 2.38 1.15

14 2.84 .91 2.68 .94

15 2.84 1.03 2.65 1.05

16 2.94 .87 2.80 .91

17 2.77 .92 2.73 .94

18 2.56 1.15 2.35 1.16

19 2.69 1.09 2.51 1.05

20 2.73 1.08 2.61 1.07

21 2.56 1.13 2.46 1.10

22 2.69 1.03 2.53 1.02

23 3.11 .87 2.94 .94

24 2.77 1.03 2.62 1.04

25 2.82 1.01 2.75 .99

26 2.91 .93 2.78 .93

27 2.98 .89 2.82 .93

28 2.81 .98 2.72 .99

29 3.01 .88 2.89 .91

X X


(July2011)

30 3.01 .88 2.87 .92

31 2.87 .94 2.75 .94

32 2.74 .93 2.62 .91

33 2.95 .91 2.81 .95

34 2.91 .91 2.81 .94

35 2.85 .94 2.66 .98

36 2.91 1.25 2.86 .96

37 2.97 .89 2.81 .94

38 2.85 .96 2.69 1.03

39 2.98 .89 2.79 .94

40 2.98 .88 2.80 .94

41 2.98 .90 2.77 .95

42 3.00 .89 2.81 .95

43 3.01 .89 2.84 .94

44 3.00 .89 2.81 .95

45 3.01 .88 2.83 .93

46 3.01 .88 2.83 .94

47 3.01 .89 2.82 .95

48 3.01 .89 2.83 .94

49 3.01 .89 2.82 .94

50 2.93 90 2.83 .94

51 2.84 .90 2.71 .93

52 2.85 .92 2.72 .96

53 2.74 .95 2.67 .97

54 2.86 .84 2.71 .91

55 2.90 .86 2.74 .95

56 2.77 .95 2.67 .99

57 2.83 .90 2.78 .91

58 2.76 .92 2.85 .88

59 2.84 .91 2.77 .94

60 2.80 .88 2.76 .87

From the table 3 above, the influence of gender on the mean scores of the

pupils in the Giftedness Identification Test for Primary Schools (GITPS) test

items was observed in fifteen items.

These are items 5, 8, 9, 11, 23, 29, 30, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49. For

these items males have a higher mean than females. This table further revealed

that the female pupils had a slightly higher mean than the male in item 2, but

of equal standard deviation. Male had mean of 3.00 and SD of 0.97 while

female had 3.11 and SD of 0.97.


( July 2011)

Hypothesis

HO1: Gender will not significantly influence pupils’ response to the GITPS

The scores of Male and Female pupils on the Giftedness Identification Test for

Primary Schools (GITPS) were subjected to a t-test of difference between

means of independent samples. Summary of the result is presented in table 4

Table 4: t-test of significance of difference in the mean scores of Male and

Female pupils on the GIINPS, at P<0.05 Ite

ms

Gender Numb

er SD Df t-Cal Significa

nt level

(2-

tailed)

Decision

1 Male

Female

631

517

2.44

2.39

.87

.83

1146 0.99 0.320 Significant

2 Male

Female

631

517

3.00

3.11

.97

.97

1146 -2.02 0.043 Not Significant

3 Male

Female

631

517

2.60

2.55

.93

.96


4 Male

Female

631

517

2.27

2.40

1.08

1.02


5 Male

Female

631

517

3.03

2.84

.89

.94

1146 3.35 0.001 Not Significant

6 Male

Female

631

517

2.79

2.63

1.03

1.03


7 Male

Female

631

517

2.86

2.72

.92

.95


8 Male

Female

631

517

3.00

2.87

.84

.89


9 Male

Female

631

517

3.08

2.94

.89

.95


10 Male

Female

631

517

2.88

2.72

1.00

1.02


11 Male

Female

631

517

3.05

2.79

.91

1.01


12 Male

Female

631

517

2.87

2.72

.93

.93

1146 2.53 0.011 No Significant

13 Male

Female

631

517

2.56

2.38

1.18

1.15


14 Male

Female

631

517

2.84

2.68

.91

.94


15 Male

Female

631

517

2.84

2.65

1.03

1.05


16 Male

Female

631

517

2.94

2.80

.87

.91


17 Male

Female

631

517

2.77

2.73

.92

.94


18 Male 631 256 1.15 1146 3.00 0.003 Not Significant

X


(July2011)

Female 517 2.35 1.16

19 Male

Female

631

517

2.69

2.51

1.09

1.05


20 Male

Female

631

517

2.73

2.61

1.08

1.07


21 Male

Female

631

517

2.56

2.46

1.13

1.10


22 Male

Female

631

517

2.69

2.53

1.03

1.02


23 Male

Female

631

517

3.11

2.94

.87

.94


24 Male

Female

631

517

2.77

2.62

1.03

1.04


25 Male

Female

631

517

2.82

2.75

1.01

.99


26 Male

Female

631

517

2.91

2.78

.93

.93


27 Male

Female

631

517

2.98

2.83

.89

.93


28 Male

Female

631

517

2.81

2.72

.98

.99


29 Male

Female

631

517

3.01

2.89

.88

.91


30 Male

Female

631

517

3.01

2.87

.88

.92


31 Male

Female

631

517

2.87

2.75

.94

.94


32 Male

Female

631

517

2.74

2.62

.93

.91


33 Male

Female

631

517

2.95

2.81

.91

.95


34 Male

Female

631

517

2.91

2.81

.91

.94


35 Male

Female

631

517

2.85

2.66

.94

.98


36 Male

Female

631

517

2.91

2.86

1.25

.96


37 Male

Female

631

517

2.97

2.81

.89

.94


38 Male

Female

631

517

2.85

2.69

.96

1.03


39 Male

Female

631

517

2.98

2.79

.89

.94


40 Male

Female

631

517

2.98

2.80

.88

.94


41 Male

Female

631

517

2.98

2.77

.90

.95


42 Male 631 3.00 .89 1146 3.53 0.000 Not Significant


( July 2011)

Female 517 2.81 .95

43 Male

Female

631

517

3.01

2.84

.89

.94


44 Male

Female

631

517

3.00

2.81

.89

.95


45 Male

Female

631

517

3.01

2.83

.88

.93


46 Male

Female

631

517

3.01

2.83

.88

.94


47 Male

Female

631

517

3.01

2.82

.89

.95


48 Male

Female

631

517

3.01

2.83

.89

.94


49 Male

Female

631

517

3.01

2.82

.89

.94


50 Male

Female

631

517

2.93

2.83

.90

.94


51 Male

Female

631

517

2.84

2.71

.90

.93


52 Male

Female

631

517

2.85

2.72

.92

.96


53 Male

Female

631

517

2.74

2.07

.95

.97


54 Male

Female

631

517

2.86

2.71

.84

.91


55 Male

Female

631

517

2.90

2.74

.86

.95


56 Male

Female

631

517

2.77

2.67

.95

.99


57 Male

Female

631

517

2.83

2.78

.90

.91


58 Male

Female

631

517

2.76

2.85

.92

.88


59 Male

Female

631

517

2.84

2.77

.91

.94


60 Male

Female

631

517

2.80

2.79

.88

.87


Summary of data analysis in Table 4 reveals that there is significant

difference in the mean scores of male and female pupils in items, 1, 3, 17, 20,

21,25, 28, 34, 36, 50, 53, 56, 57, 59 and 60. This suggests that gender

significantly influenced pupils‟ response to those items of the GITPS. On the

other hand, the remaining items were not significantly influenced by gender.


(July2011)

Summary of the Results Results presented in this chapter revealed that:

1. Out of the sixty (60) items of the GITPS, forty nine (49) items

survived the validity process and were retained, while eleven (11)

items were dropped.

2. The valid GITPS subscales have reliability coefficients as follows;

Verbal Ability Test (VAT) has 0.64

Quantitative Ability Test (QAT) has 0.89

Perceptual Ability Test (PAT) has 0.079

Creative Ability Test (CAT) has 0.93

Leadership Ability Test (LAT) has 0.96

Visual Ability Test (VAT) has 0.98

Psychomotor Ability Test (PAT) has 0.91

3. Gender had a significant influence on the pupils‟ response to fifteen out of

the forty nine items.

Recommendations

Based on the outcome of this instrumentation exercise, the researchers

recommend as follows:

(a). Schools, researchers and research institution should take advantage of this

study by using tilizing the instrument in the identification of gifted children

at the preimary school stage.

(b). Instrumentation researchers should take a follow-up study on the stability

of this instrument across culture

(c). Early identification of gifted pupils should be integrated in the nation‟s

education policy and be implemented or carry out in primary three (3)

which is the end of lower basic education nation wide.

(4). Government and Donor agencies such as UNICEF should sponsor

seminars and workshop where the application of the instrument for

identifying the gifted pupils should be taught to the teachers and education

manages.


( July 2011)

Validated Copy Of Giftedness Identification Test For Schools

Verbal ability test: Put the following words in Alphabetical Order

1. FATHER:

(a) AEFHRT (b) AEFHTR (c ) AEFTRH (d) AETRHF

2. MOTHER:

(a) EHMOTR (b) EHMTRO (c ) EHMORT (d) EHTROM

Express the relationship by selecting the correct option A to D.

(3) Daughter is to mother as …………………….. is to………….

(a) father-son (b) sister-mother (c) son-father (d) sister-father.

(4) Man is to walk, as snake is to………..

(a) roll (b) jump (c) crawl (d) coil

Choose the words nearest in meaning to the words underlined in the sentence.

Option A to D.

(5) John trekked to school.

(a) ran (b) traveled (c) walked (d) hopped.

(6) Ada loves her siblings

(a) children (b) brothers and sisters (c) parents (d) in-laws

Quantitative ability test.

(7) A pencil costs N5. what will be the cost of 12 such pencils.

(a) N63 (b) N62 (c) N61 (d) N60

Study the example and answer questions 13 and 14.

Example


(July2011)

(a) 9 (b) 11 (c) 10 (d) 12

(a) 23 (b) 20 (c) 13 (d) 3

Study the example below and answer questions

Example

Perceptual

28

12 8 19 ?

(8)

?

(9)

10 13

4 7

10

12 5

2

12

? 4

3

(12)

(a) 3 (b) 2 (c) 4 (d) 9

3

7 15

10

5 (10) 2

6 12

8

?

6 17

?

4 7

11 (a) 9 (b) 10 (c) 7 (d) 8

(12). For questions below study the example

(a) 16 (b) 19 (c) 17 (d) 15


( July 2011)

ability test.

Complete the objects by choosing the correct letter A to E that matches the objects.

(14) If is to ;

(15)

(16)

(18) Which part of the

circle is m? _____________

(a) ¼ (b) 1/3 (c)

1/5 (d) ½

m

is to

(b)

(c) (a) (d) is to

a. b. c. d.

is to

(c)

b

.

(a)

(d)

(a)

(d) c

(b) m

is to as is

to

(c) (d) (b) (a)

(13)

(17)

is to


(July2011)

(19) How many triangles are they in the figure?

(a) 1 (b) 2 (c) ½ (d) 3

Creative Ability test

The word teach is written in code as:

Mnopq Therefore:

(20) Eat is__________(a) mno (b) pqo (c) onp (d) nom

(21) Ate is ___________ (a) omn (b) omo (c) mno (d) pmo

(22) Tea, is ___________ (a) mop (b) mno (c) onm (d) nom

(23) Hat, is ___________ (a) qom (b) moa (c) qmm (d) mon

(24) Cat, is _______________(a) qmo (b) pom (c) poq (d) nmq

Now, choose correct word from each two letter stem given below. One letter can

be added after the stem to form a new word.

(25) As, is _____________ (a) Asks (b) Asked(c) Ask (d) Asking

(26) ea, is _____________ (a) eat (b) eats (c) eaten (d) eatery

(27) cr, is ____________ (a) cry (b) cried (c) crying (d) cream

Leadership ability test.

Choose your answer from options A to D for questions below:

(28) If you are appointed as a class monitor, how will you behave to others (a)

Politely (b) Rudely (c) Very rudely (d) Very politely.

(29) A good child is expected to obey --- (a) Very few school rules (b) All the

schools rules (c) Some school rules (d) Few school rules

(30) Good pupils should go to school -------- (a) Regularly (b) Sometimes (c) few

times (d) Very few times


( July 2011)

(31 )If a pupil is sick and cannot go to school, he or she should. (a) Write to the

teacher (b) Ask the friends to tell the teacher (c) As the parents to tell the teacher

(d) Tell the teacher after recovery.

(32) If a small snake crawl into your class, what will you do? (a) Try and kill it (b)

chase it out of the class (c) Watch where it is crawling to

(d) run out of the class.

Visual Ability Test

Identify from the options A-D and tick the correct shapes drawn below

(33) Square (a) (B) (C) D

(34) Rectangle (a) (B) (C) (D)

(35) Triangle (a) (b) (c) (d)

(36) Cylinder (a) (b) (C) (D)

How many parts has each of the following figures (5-7)

(37) (a) 2 (b) 3 (c) 4 (d) 1

(38) (a) 4 (b) 5 (c) 7 (d) 6

(39) How many sides has this shape


(July2011)

(a) 6 (b) 4 (c) 5 (d) 3

40) Put the pictures in the right order using their number.

Psychomotor Ability

The three “problem figures” make a series. Find the one among „answer figures‟ that

would be next in the series.

Problem figures Answer figures

(41)

(42)

(43) Use the six blocks on the left, and make the pattern shown on right (three blocks

at the base and one on top)

(44) Use eight blocks to form the pattern (four at the base and two on top)

1

Cooking with stove

2

Matches

3

Light the stove

a b c d

d

a b c d

(a) 123 (b) 231 (c) 313 (d) 321

a b

c d

a b c

8


( July 2011)

(a) 13 (b) 14 (c) 16 (d) 15 (a)15 (b) 16 (c) 17 (d) 18

Use the weighing balance and answer this questions.

(47) The weight is heavier at which side?

(a) apple side (b) right side (c) bottom of pear (d) left side

(48) The weight is lighter at which side?

(a) left side (b) apple side (c) pear side (d) right side

(49) Which barrow load will be easier to push, if the same force is applied

Apple

Pear

Right side

Left side

a b c d

How many blocks are there in these pattern,

(46)

(45)


(July2011)

References

Abonyi, O.S (2004). Development and validation of a Biology interest

inventory. Journal of Education, Ebonyi State University Abakaliki:

2(1)55-62.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004). National Policy on Education. Lagos:

Nigeria Educational Research and Development Council.

Feldman, R.S. (1994). Essentials of understanding psychology. Massachusetts:

McGraw Hill Inc.

Gifted Children Association of British Columbia (2008). Columbia:

University press.

Ibe E. (2008). Status of Science Teacher in Junior Secondary Science in B.G

Nworgu (Eds) Educational Reforms and the Attainment of the

Millennium Development Goals (MDGS). The Nigerian experience.

Nsukka: University Trust Publishers.

Johnson L. (1993). Thoughts on Giftedness: Understanding our Gifted.

American Psychological journal, 5(5) 15.

Joseph, R.(1992). The Right Brain and the Unconscious. New York: Plenum.

Nwaogu, Abosi, Achalu, Ngwuke and okobia (1992). Special education: an

introduction. Asaba: precision publisher (Nig).

Nworgu, B G (1985). Development and preliminary validation of physics

Achievement test (PAT). An unpublished M.Ed thesis, University of

Nigeria Nsukka.

Nworgu, B G (2003). Educational Measurement and Evaluation: Theory and

Practice. Nsukka: University Trust Publishers.

Scar, S. (1997). Behaviour Genetic and Social Theory of Intelligence. New

york: Cambridge university press

Siegler, R.S. (1994). Cognitive Variability. Current Direction in Psychological

Science Journal 3(1) 1-5.


( July 2011)

Siegler, R.S. (1998). CHILDREN’S Thinking. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Siegler R.S. and kotovsky, E (1986). Two Levels of Giftedness Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Silverman, L.K (1986). What Happens to the Gifted girls. Critical Issues in

Gifted Education- Journal. 1, 43-89.

Silverman, L.K and miller NB (2007). A Feminine Perspective of giftedness.

Amsterdam. Springer science publication

Sternberg, R.J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence:

New York: Cambridge University press.

Sternberg, R.J (1986). Intelligence Applied. New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.

Sternberg. R.J. (1988a). A Three Model of Creativity. Cambridge England:

Cambridge university press.

Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Educating Intelligence. New York: Cambridge

University press.

Sternberg, R.J. (1998). How Intelligent Is Intelligence Test?Journal of

Scientific. American Exploring Intelligence. 9, 12-17.

Sternberg, R.J (2000b). Successful Intelligence: A Unified View of Giftedness.

Philadelphia: psychology Association Press.

Weshler D. (1949) Weshler Intelligent Scale For Children. New York:

Psychological Corporation.

White S.H. (2000). Conceptual Foundation OF IQ Testing. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Development & Validation of a Giftedness identification instrument for Primary school pupils

Documents

Transcript of Development & Validation of a Giftedness identification instrument for Primary school pupils