Application of modern methods for diagnosing the intellectual abilities of students in identifying of giftedness

409

Abstract

The development and study of methods of diagnostics of intellectual abilities, as well as analysis of the possibilities of practical application of the results of IQ tests are currently urgent tasks in the field of educational and developmental psychology, as well as in a relatively new field - cognitive neuroscience. The data of intellectual tests in a generalized form are used in various areas of practical activity: to assess the results and forecast in the teaching of schoolchildren and students, to identify the age dynamics of the development of intelligence, to assess lots of factors that affect the formation of intellectual abilities, etc. In particular, the assessment of intelligence using standardized tests, for which modern norms have been obtained, is needed as one of the methods of identifying intellectual giftedness of secondary school students. Investigations on defining the role of g-factor in the development of other cognitive abilities and its relationship with academic achievement are also actual. The article provides an overview of modern research on the role of intelligent diagnostics in identifying giftedness and in predicting high professional achievements. The analysis of the connections between general intelligence and cognitive and non-cognitive abilities is carried out and the value of the IQ indicator for the realization of the personal potential in creative activity is considered. The modern standardization, the norms of intelligence tests and their effectiveness in the task of intellectual giftedness are discussed.

General Information

Keywords: intelligence, cognitive ability, test standardization, intellectual giftedness

Journal rubric: Educational Psychology and Pedagogical Psychology

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2021100408

Received: 11.11.2021

Accepted:

For citation: Ermakov S.S. Application of modern methods for diagnosing the intellectual abilities of students in identifying of giftedness [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sovremennaia zarubezhnaia psikhologiia = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2021. Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 85–96. DOI: 10.17759/jmfp.2021100408. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

References

  1. Ermakov S.S. Zarubezhnye obrazovatel'nye programmy dlya odarennykh uchashchikhsya [Foreign educational programs for gifted students] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2014. Vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 72–83. URL: https://psyjournals.ru/jmfp/2014/n2/70109.shtml (Accessed 17.12.2021). (In Russ.).
  2. Ermakova E.Yu. «Media-teatr» kak obrazovatel'naya praktika proektnoi deyatel'nosti ["Media Theater" as an educational practice of project activities]. In Krivulya N.G. (ed.), Aktual'nye problemy ekrannykh i interaktivnykh media [Actual problems of screen and interactive media]: Sbornik materialov nauchnoi konferentsii: MGU im. M. V. Lomonosova. Vysshaya shkola (fakul'tet) televideniya (Moskva, 29-30 oktyabrya 2018 g.). Moscow: Kalligraf, 2020, pp. 35–43. (In Russ.).
  3. Raven Dzh., Raven Dzh.K., Kort Dzh. Rukovodstvo k Progressivnym Matritsam Ravena i Slovarnym Shkalam. Razdel 3. Standartnye Progressivnye Matritsy (vklyuchaya parallel'nye i plyus versii) [A Guide to Progressive Raven Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Section 3. Standard Progressive Matrices (including parallel and plus versions)]. Moscow: Kogito-Tsentryu, 2012. 144 p. (In Russ.).
  4. Osmon D.C. et al. Big Five personality relationships with general intelligence and specific Cattell-Horn-Carroll factors of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 2018. Vol. 131, pp. 51–56. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.019
  5. Borter N., Troche S.J., Rammsayer T.H. Speed and accuracy-related measures of an intelligence test are differentially predicted by the speed and accuracy measures of a cognitive task. Intelligence, 2018. Vol. 71, pp. 1–7. DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2018.09.001
  6. Breit M., Preckel F. Incremental validity of specific cognitive abilities beyond general intelligence for the explanation of students’ school achievement. Gifted and Talented International, 2020. Vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 73–85. DOI:10.1080/15332276.2020.1799454
  7. Butler H.A., Pentoney C., Bong M.P. Predicting real-world outcomes: Critical thinking ability is a better predictor of life decisions than intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2017. Vol. 25, pp. 38–46. DOI:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.06.005
  8. Caemmerer J.M., Keith T.Z., Reynolds M.R. Beyond individual intelligence tests: Application of Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory. Intelligence, 2020. Vol. 79, article ID 101433, 11 p. DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2020.101433
  9. Coyle T.R. Non-g factors predict educational and occupational criteria: More than g. Journal of Intelligence, 2018. Vol. 6, no. 3, article ID 43, 15 p. DOI:10.3390/jintelligence6030043
  10. Coyle T.R., Greiff S. The future of intelligence: The role of specific abilities. Intelligence, 2021. Vol. 88, article ID 101549, 5 p. DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2021.101549
  11. Dombrowski S.C., McGill R.J., Morgan G.B. Monte Carlo modeling of contemporary intelligence test (IQ) factor structure: Implications for IQ assessment, interpretation, and theory. Assessment, 2021. Vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 977–993. DOI:10.1177/1073191119869828
  12. Early Theories [Elektronnyi resurs]. Cognition PSYC 1301. SoftChalk, LessonBuilder. URL: https://dbuweb.dbu.edu/dbu/psyc1301/softchalk/s8lecture1/s8lecture13.html (Accessed 11.11.2021).
  13. Gardner H. Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic Books, 1999. 300 p.
  14. Gibbons A., Warne R.T. First publication of subtests in the Stanford-Binet 5, WAISIV, WISC-V, and WPPSI-IV. Intelligence, 2019. Vol. 75, pp. 9–18. DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2019.02.005
  15. Intelligence. International Society For Intelligence Research (ISIR) [Elektronnyi resurs]. ISIR, 2020. URL: https://isironline.org/ (Accessed 11.11.2021).
  16. Kendra C. How Low IQ Scores Are Determined [Elektronnyi resurs]. Verywellmind. Dotdash, 2020. URL: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-considered-a-low-iq-2795282 (Accessed 11.11.2021).
  17. Kendra C. Theories of Intelligence in Psychology [Elektronnyi resurs]. Verywellmind. Dotdash, 2019. URL: https://www.verywellmind.com/theories-of-intelligence-2795035 (Accessed 11.11.2021).
  18. Kovacs K., Conway A.R. A unified cognitive/differential approach to human intelligence: Implications for IQ testing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2019. Vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 255–272. DOI:10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.05.003
  19. Legg S., Hutter M. A collection of definitions of intelligence. In Goertzel B., Wang P. (eds.), Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. Vol. 157. Amsterdam, NL; IOS Press, 2007, pp. 17–24.
  20. McGill R.J., Dombrowski S.C., Canivez G.L. Cognitive profile analysis in school psychology: History, issues, and continued concerns. Journal of School Psychology, 2018. Vol. 71. pp. 108–121. DOI:10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.007
  21. Milic S., Simeunovic V. Concordance between giftedness assessments by teachers, parents, peers and the self-assessment using multiple intelligences. High Ability Studies, 2020. 19 p. DOI:10.1080/13598139.2020.1832445
  22. Oliver Wilhelm O., Kyllonen P. To predict the future, consider the past: Revisiting Carroll (1993) as a guide to the future of intelligence research. Intelligence, 2021. Vol. 89, article ID 101585, 11 p. DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2021.101585
  23. Rindermann H., Ackerman A.L. Piagetian tasks and psychometric intelligence: Different or similar constructs? Psychological Reports, 2021. Vol. 124, no. 6, pp. 2795–2821. DOI:10.1177/0033294120965876
  24. Rindermann H., Becker D., Coyle T.R. Survey of expert opinion on intelligence: Intelligence research, experts' background, controversial issues, and the media. Intelligence, 2020. Vol. 78, article ID 101406, 18 p. DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406
  25. Serpico D. What kind of kind is intelligence? Philosophical Psychology, 2018. Vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 232–252. DOI:10.1080/09515089.2017.1401706
  26. Shearer C.B. Multiple intelligences in gifted and talented education: Lessons learned from neuroscience after 35 years. Roeper Review, 2020. Vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 49–63. DOI:10.1080/02783193.2019.1690079
  27. Shearer C.B., Karanian J.M. The neuroscience of intelligence: Empirical support for the theory of multiple intelligences? Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 2017. Vol. 6, pp. 211–223. DOI:10.1016/j.tine.2017.02.002
  28. Shuttleworth-Edwards A.B. Generally representative is representative of none: commentary on the pitfalls of IQ test standardization in multicultural settings. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2016. Vol 30, no. 7, pp. 975–998. DOI:10.1080/13854046.2016.1204011
  29. Nicolas S. et al. Sick? Or slow? On the origins of intelligence as a psychological object. Intelligence, 2013. Vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 699–711. DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2013.08.006
  30. Demetriou A. et al. The future of intelligence: The central meaning-making unit of intelligence in the mind, the brain, and artificial intelligence. Intelligence, 2021. Vol. 87, article ID 101562, 10 p. DOI:10.1016/j.intell.2021.101562

Information About the Authors

Sergey S. Ermakov, PhD in Psychology, Senior Researcher of the Laboratory "Information Technologies for Psychological Diagnostics" Associate Professor of the Department of "Age Psychology named after Professor L.F.Obukhova" of the Faculty of "Psychology of Education", Associate Professor of the Department of "Applied Mathematics" of the Faculty of "Information Technology"., Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4330-2618, e-mail: ermakovss@mgppu.ru

Metrics

Views

Total: 721
Previous month: 69
Current month: 22

Downloads

Total: 409
Previous month: 15
Current month: 5