CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
IDENTIFYING GIFTEDNESS AMONG BLACK CHILDREN
WITH THE SOI-LA TEST
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Education, Educational Psychology,
Counseling and Guidance
by
Sandra Martea Culler
June, 1980
The Thesis of Sandra Martea Culler is approved:
Mary N~Meeker, Ed.D.
California State University, Northridge
ii
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated with love to my
daughter, Vivian, for her patience, support, and
loving understanding • • . •
• . • And to my parents, Martin and Vivian
Culler, who gave me the strength and increased
desire to develop the talents and abilities they
originally blessed me with.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the members of my Advisory Committee who gave generously of their
time and assistance so that this study could be completed.
Special acknowledgement is extended to Advisors
Dr. Augusto Britton, Chairman, for his continuing professional guidance, invaluable suggestions, constant encouragement, and sensitive personal interest throughout the
study, Dr. Mary Meeker whose authenticity of self, professional dedication, creative insights, warm personal
interest and growing friendship is highly regarded, and to
Dr. Loren Grey whose deep sense of soul greatly affected
the author.
In addition I would.like to thank:
• The elementary school administrator and faculty of
the facilitating West Los Angeles School;
• The SOI Institute, El Segundo, California, for
cooperative computer programming assistance;
• My many precious friends for continual moral support and assistance;
• Lynne Turner who took an active, creative part in
the mechanics- a very fine typist.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page.
DEDICATION . . .
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
ABSTRACT
ix
Chapter
1
THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
4
4
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND . . . • .
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
DEFINITION OF TERMS • • • • . . .
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS . . • . • • • .
2
THE REVIEW OF THE SELECTED LITERATURE .
SOI STUDY RELATED TO CRITICAL
THINKING
. . • . . . . • .
SOI STUDY RELATED TO MATHEMATICS
SOI STUDY RELATED TO SELF-CONCEPT
SOI STUDIES RELATED TO GIFTEDNESS
3
17
. . .
• • .
.
•
18
19
20
·23
Disadvantaged Gifted Chicanos .
Disadvantaged Gifted Whites . • • .
Disadvantaged Gifted Blacks
25
25
26
METHOD
SAMPLE • . • •
INSTRUMENTATION
PROCEDURE . • .
SCORING . • • .
4
5
12
13
15
28
•
• • . .
. • • .
. . • .
. . .
• • • . . • • .
. . • •
• . • • . .
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
TREATMENT OF THE DATA
ASSUMPTIONS AND FINDINGS
v
. . . . . .
28
29
31
32
33
33
~
34
Chapter
Page
Findings
Findings
Findings
Findings
for
for
for
for
Assumption
Assumption
Assumption
Assumption
1
. . . .
2 •
. • •
3 . . . • • .
4 • •
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS .
41
SUMMARY) CONCLUSIONS) AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5
SUMMARY .
.
• .
.
44
44
The Problem .
. . .
Theoretical Background
Methods .
. • . .
Findings
CONCLUSIONS .
34
35
37
40
44
45
47
48
•
49
Implications
. • . • .
Limitations of the Present Study
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY .
REFERENCES .
50
51
51
52
APPENDICES
ACCUMULATED TOTALS OF EXPECTED SCORES FOR
THE BINET. • • . • . . • • . . • • . .
56
ACCUMULATED TOTALS OF EXPECTED SCORES FOR
THE WISC AND THE WISC-R • • • • . • •
58
c
INTERCORRELATION OF SOI-LA SUBTEST TOTALS
61
D
EXPECTED SCORES FOR SOI-LA TEST • .
63
A
B
. • .
I
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Page
Means and Standard Deviations for Primary and
Elementary Students on the SOI-LA Subtests,
•
38
Frequency of Children Showing Giftedness by
Grade Level on the SOI-LA Test • • .
. . •
40
Comparison Between Anglos and Blacks on SOI
Identified Expected Abilities Gifted
Subfactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
Raw Scores •
2
3
•
•
•
•
.
.
vii
•
.
•
.
.
.
•
.
..
.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1
Structure of Intellect Cube •
7
2
Structure of Intellect
8
3
Mean Factor Score Approximations for Six
Clinical Groups, Symbolic Memory Tests
11
Expected Scores by Grade for the SOI-LA
Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
4
viii
ABSTRACT.
IDENTIFYING GIFTEDNESS AMONG BLACK CHILDREN
WITH THE SOI-LA TEST
by
Sandra Martea Culler
Master of Arts in Education, Educational Psychology,
Counseling and Guidance
The purpose of this study was to identify, in a group
screening process, gifted and creative elementary black
boys and girls.
Forty-five students, in a West Los
Angeles Elementary School, were selected for screening by
teacher judgments and identified gifted through the use of
the SOI-LA test, a non-verbal learning abilities test of
intelligence and creativity.
This descriptive study was guided by the four following assumptions with findings presented congruently:
(1) intelligence is a series of differential abilities;
the data support this assumption but also suggest that
ix
giftedness is specific;
(2} the older the children the
higher the score on the SOI-LA; the results support this
assumption. The data were analyzed using a 1-tail t-test
comparing Primary and Elementary students on the SOI-LA
subfactors.
Statistically significant differences were
found at the .OS, .01, and .001 levels of confidence.
(3) Children considered to be gifted will obtain scores
on selected subfactors identifying giftedness 3 years
above grade level on three or more subfactors.
The sta-
tistical analyses produced a non-significant chi-square of
'
9.921, S degrees of freedom at the .OS level of confidence;.
and (4) it was expected that blacks from this study would
show patterns of giftedness on SOI abilities different
from those shown by Anglos.
However, the performance of
blacks was more similar than different from Anglos.
The findings suggest that we should follow the
strategy of determining specific abilities instead of
reporting a single intelligence score reflective of a
global index.
Another implication is that cognitive abilities are
closely associated with socialization and acculturation.
In conclusion, there are many unanswered questions
and the need for further research in cross-cultural
studies, in-depth group studies, cross-validation studies,
and criterion-related studies.
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM
Many projects of a national scene focus on the school
performance of the atypical elementary child.
cal child usually is defined as one:
The atypi-
(1) whose environ-
ment provides inadequate educational opportunities,
(2) whose ethnic differences are in evidence,
cultural differences are in evidence and,
(3) whose
(4) whose dif-
ferential and lower school performance is markedly substandard.
The studies of their differences in school per-
formance have not related specifically to differences in
ability to perform in school and is a fundamental and persistent problem for educators and psychologists.
How do we provide valid psychological evaluation for
children from widely dissimilar cultural groups? There
is no doubt that one of the most pressing means expressed
by our teachers and school administrators is for testing
instruments which will provide fair, accurate, and broad
assessments of the abilities (to learn) viz., of young
children from cultural backgrounds other than those typical of our total school population.
(Lesser, Fifer, &
Clark, 1965, p. 3)
Another, less frequent characteristic of an atypical
learner is that of giftedness.
1
The discovery and enhance-
ment of talent in atypical cultural groups is also a major
1 Giftedness is defined legally in California as the
top 2% of the population on a test of intelligence.
1
2
issue in education of the gifted today.
Hillard (1976),
pointed out there is no commonly accepted definition of
"gifted."
Yet, most educational systems continue to func-
tion on the implicit assumption that giftedness represents
whatever is measured at the top end of standard IQ tests.
According to Bruch (1975), IQ tests rely on abilities to
manipulate verbal concepts.
The lack of verbal abilities
can severely penalize persons who come from culturally
different or linguistically different backgrounds.
Inves-
tigators concerned with the question of how to identify
gifted or potentially gifted children from lower socioeconomic populations and/or culturally different populations have offered several methods utilizing test and
observational approaches.
Identification through specification of cultural
strengths according to the Structure of Intellect (SI)
Model of Guilford (1967a) was suggested by Bruch (1970).
Bruch used the Meeker-Binet SOI Analysis to develop a
screening form of the Binet for disadvantaged.
Torrance observed that figural creativity was higher
in southern
u.s.
blacks than in several other cultural
groups (Torrance, 1967}.
He also described a list of
creative positives to be observed as indices of potential
ability in black children (Torrance, 1971).
"Today, those who speak on behalf of disadvantaged
students tend to be against IQ testing in the schools"
3
(Meeker, 1973, p. 1).
More often than not their opposi-
tion is based on, for various reasons, inaccurate test
results or IQ tests which are normed on dominant American
culture and heavily loaded with language that often characterizes the student as below normal in intelligence.
That is due to the fact that the basic IQ tests are
verbally loaded (see Appendix A).
Shuey (1966), Jensen
(1969), and Herrnstein (1971), claim through their use of
IQ tests they have found genetic deficiencies of "intelligence" in minority groups.
This characterization func-
tions as a label that prompts attitudes and treatment
possibly inappropriate and detrimental to the cognitive
and psychological development of the child (Meeker, 1973).
Mercer (1972), indicates that public schools use IQ tests
to stamp the "retarded" label upon thousands of Mexican
American children who should not be so classified.
The
student in turn,tends to reflect behavior that fulfills
the role label, accompanied with specific expectations as
generally presuposed by the teacher (Meeker, 197-3).
When the problem is recognized, "that the practice of
testing is little related to the reason for testing and
the results are not used appropriately, i.e., as diagnostic instruments for the purpose of curriculum development"
(Meeker, 1973), then we will begin to identify what
abilities students need for learning.
Above and beyond the effects identification measures
4
have on the culturally different, how helpful are the
measures to all students and to the culture in general?
Statement of the Problem
Sufficient evidence exists to support the claim that
the standardized IQ and achievement tests usually used as
screening devices are certainly not adequate in judging
the full intellectual and creative abilities of the urban
minority black child.
The test results often characterize
the student as being below normal in intelligence.
The
in~dequacy of a general index of intelligence seems
apparent and recent trends toward differentiation will
undoubtedly continue.
The problem is that IQ assessments are so general in
kind because they are based on the g-factor and population
distribution of the g-factor that they bear little relationship to treatment, and rightly so.
Identification
procedures should not be centered solely on measures which
rely so heavily on culturally loaded verbal abilities
(see Appendices A and B).
Assessments, for students who
are not familiar with the dominant language, should
instead be concerned with abilities beyond those which
have been found to be characteristic of persons who
achieve at high intellectual levels.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to identify, ·in a group
5
screening process, gifted and creative elementary black
students.
These students were selected for screening by
teacher judgments and identified through the use of the
801-LA, a nonverbal learning abilities test of intelligence
and creativity.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The traditional general concept of intelligence has
been based on the belief that mental tests measure one
basic intellectual ability, called g.
The more intelli-
gent a person is, the more g is possessed.
Besides this
general capacity, ·believed to be pure intelligence, there
Were SpeCifiC faCtOrS
1
S
1
for each di-fferent minor.. type Of
ability stemming from but not part of.the g factor
(Cattell, 1963} .
Departing from the traditional theory that links all
mental abilities to a common factor, Thurston {1938}, proposed the multifactorial theory of intelligence.
He
claimed that intelligence was multifaceted, essentially a
plural word.
He identified seven specific independent
abilities, which he called primary mental abilities.
Following Thurston's approach of using factoranalytic techniques, in the late 1950's, Guilford {1967},
and his associates found distinct intellectual abilities
beyond those seven factored by Thurston.
by 1959 formed a pattern.
These abilities
They could be conceptualized
6
along three dimensions in the shape of a cube.
depicts the theoretical SI Model (Figure 1).
This cube
Figure 2
depicts the SOl, Meeker adaptation of the SI for use with
children.
As shown in Figure 1, the cube is a crossclassification of the abilities.
Guilford found that the
intellectual factors consistently arranged themselves into
three patterns, of dimensions.
He classified the abili-
ties in three different ways so that categories interacted
with each of the other dimensions.·
The three dimensions of the model specify first the
operation, second the content, and third the product of a
unique kind of intellectual ability.
Five Operations
times four Contents times six Products yields 120 distinct
types of intellectual abilities derived from the intersection of the three-way classification scheme.
The three
categories that specify each factor .are coded in terms of
a trigram symbol specifying the Operation; Content, and
Product, respectively, for the factor.
Guilford's concepts about the Structure of Intellect
may be described as follows:
1.
Operational Abilities -five primary divisions:
C
Cognition (ability to comprehend, awareness)
M
Memory (storage of information)
E
Evaluation (judgment, planning, foresight)
N
Convergent Production (reproduction of
material as learned in solving problems).
.
7
••
•
Figure 1
,
STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT CUBE*
OPERATIONS
Divergent Production\·
co N vergent Production
E valuation
~I emory
•
'\ \
\\\
C ognition\\
'\
CONTENTS
.
S yntbolic
seMantic
B ehavioral
C'J;>lj
PRODUCTS
8
,
f
Figure 2
STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT
CONTEN'I'R
Pf!ODUCTS
Unita
Ch-
Translor:matio1111
lmplicationa
Evaluation
"E"
/
9
D - Divergent Production (creative or unique ways
of producing materials or answers)
2.
Content Abilities ....., tas"ks within the operations:
F - Concrete figural objects such as pictures and
sounds
3.
S
Symbols such as numerals and letters
M
Semantics, .words and ideas
B
Behavioral information such as gestures and
signs (not yet factored)
Product Abilities - act as organizational categories for Contents:
U- Unit, can be processed singly, any singular
item, one of a k~nd
C
Classes, ability to classify
R
Relations, connections between the content
involved
s -
Systems, understanding the structure of the
content
T - Transformations, changes of various kinds
(redefinition, shifts, or modification) of
existing information or in its function
I -
Implications, extrapolations of information,
in the form of expectancies, predictions,
known or suspected antecedents, concomitants,
or consequences
Validation studies to support the use of SI Theory
began in 1962 and extended to 1975.
It was during this
period following the exploration of the Binet and Wise
components into SI factors when the validation studies
began.
Historically, the first article showing Meeker's
basing of the Binet and Wise were published by L.A. County
10
Board of Education.
This attempt to base IQ tests on a
theory of intelligence opened the door to future validation studies.
Stott and Ball (1966) replicated Meeker by factor
analyzing infant tests to place them into a theory of
intelligence.
They used factor analysis as a statistical
way of identifying the SOI abilities on every test for
which they could find a sufficient number (N).
They found
29 ability factors on all the major infant scales for
child, age 1.
(See Stott and Ball, Merrill Palmer Publi-
cation on Factor Analysis of Infant Mental Scales, 1964).
At the same time, Orpett, Meyers, Sitkei, Watts,
Carlson, McCartin, Schmandel and Bereiter were factor
analyzing test data on children to replicate Guilford's
factors.
Their attempts were successful enough to warrant
the claim that children, as well as adults, had SI
abilities~
The reader is referred to the Bibliography for
these references.
Validation for the SOI, however, was quite different.
Meeker (1966), found that differential Memory bore specific
relations to language and arithmetic (see Figure 3).
In
summary, visual memory related to learning language arts
and auditory memory related to arithmetic.
Feldman (1971), validated these findings by identifying abilities underlying reading..
He found that children
who did not learn to read by the end of the first grade
11
·'
Figure 3
MEAN PACTOR SCOU APPROXIMATXONS POR SDC CLINl:CAL GR013PS
SYMBOL%C MEMORY 'l'ZSTS
AUDrroRY !'ORWARJ)
(Factor Six)
AtmrroRY BACKWARD
(Factor Two)
MSS
MSU.
vnlt1AL BACKWARD
(Factor Five)
MSS
- +1.00
Ill+ .90
e+ .ao
.70
8+
+ .60
+ .SO
- · .40
!IJ
N
!IJ
+ .30
~· .20
;:: + .10
~+- 00
.... - .10
>C- •
i-
20
.30
g.- .40
~-.so
Ill-
!-
CJ-
.60
.70
.ao
90
-1.00
!IJ- •
i
-1.10
-1.20
1110-1.30
z -1.40
-1.SO
=
'
I'-M
' '' /
/
%-1.60
-1.70
Leqend:
A-M-A Students in mathematics
1'-M-P Students in mathematics
BP-EH --
BehaviorProblems
Educationally Handicapped
A-E--A Students in English .
P-£--1' Students in English
*'raken from:
Memory and School Achievement in Ninth Grade Boys.
M. M.aker. dissertation. PuDlished in the Genetic
Psychology Monographs. 1071. -83. 275-308.
12
and who were not mentally defective, showed deficits in:
EFU-V and EFU-A; MFU-V and MFU-A; CFU-V and CFU-A (see
Definitions, p. 14).
Hays and Periera (1972), inspired by Feldman, further
validated MFU-V, determining that visual memory training
of kindergarten and first grade children significantly
improved their reading achievement.
A supposition could
be made that the SOI memory training techniques employed
contribute significantly to reading achievement.
Two recent investigations add more theoretical bases
for the use of remediating intellectual abilities.
Ball
and Merrifield (1971), isolated SOI abilities in 3, 4, and
5 year olds.
They were interested in learning whether the
abilities were stable over time.
abilities were not stable.
They found that the
A child strong in Cognition at
age 4 might not maintain this strength a year later when
tested.
It was found that environmental variables were,
as measures showed, significant correlations with the
abilities also.
The implication is that cognitive abili-
ties change over time and therefore students should be
tracked diagnostically at the earliest years.
This is
· especially true for individualized teaching for all
students and most particularly for disadvantaged youth.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The scope of the study was limited to elementary
children in the Los Angeles U.s.n., in our elementary
13
school in West Los Angeles.
The students tested were
referred by their teacher for gifted screening as requested
by the school psychologist trainee.
Unlimited number of
students were requested from Grades 1-6.
students involved in the study were 45.
Total number of
Inferences from
the study were limited to those students selected on
teacher judgments for gifted screening testing.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Some key terms are defined for the reader's convenience.
For clarity, these terms are to be understood as
follows:
Identification.
Is a screening procedure to deter-
mine, as a first step, which children should be studied or
examined more carefully.
It is the process of looking at
a large group of school children and trying to locate those
who are most likely to be included in some classification
system.
Giftedness.
Is 3 years above grade level as indi-
cated on the Expected Scores by Grade for the SOI-LA Test.
SOI-LA Learning Abilities Test.
It is a test of 26
specific learning abilities, abilities which research
studies since 1962 have shown to form the foundational
cluster for a student's learning reading and arithmetic.
SOI factor definitions for the 26 learning abilities as
defined in the SOI-LA Examiners Manual are as follows:
14
Cognition
CFU - Ability to identify objects by name, visually
(CFU-V) and auditorially (CFU-A)
CFC
Classifies perceived objects
CFS
Perceives spatial patterns and maintains
orientation
CFT - Manipulates or transforms objects into another
visual arrangement
CSR
Discovers relations involving letter patterns
CSS
Ability to discover complex relationships forming patterns or systems involving symbols
CMU
Vocabulary
CMR
Discovers relations in conceptual, abstract
meanings
CMS - Ability to comprehend or structure problems in
preparation for solving them
Memory
MFU - Recalls materials learned by visual (MFU-V) and
auditory (MFU-A) presentation
MSU - Recalls for immediate production after one
presentation a series of numerals or letters
MSS
Memory for a system of numerals or letters
MSI
Memory for well-practiced number operations
Evaluation
EFU
Ability to identify identical forms
EFC
Ability to classify units; to analyze how they
are classified
ESC - Ability to judge applicability of class properties of symbolic information, i.e. judging of a
class in which to place numbers, letters, or
signs
15
ESS - Ability to estimate appropriateness of aspects
of a symbolic system
Convergent Production
NFU - Ability to comprehend and reproduce an observed
bit of behavior
NSS - States the order of symbolic systems from start
to goal correctly
NST - Ability to produce new symbolic items of information by revising given items
NSI -
Substitutes or derives symbols as expected
Divergent Production
DFU - Ability to produce many figures conforming to
simple specifications
DSR - Generates a variety of relations between numbers
or letters
DMU - Ability to call up many ideas in a specified
class
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
This is an exploratory, descriptive study seeking
validation for the following assumptions:
1.
Intelligence is a series of differential abili-
2.
The older the children, the higher the score on
ties.
the SOI.
3.
Children considered to be gifted by teachers will
obtain scores, on selected subfactors identifying giftedness, 3 years above grade level on three or more subfactors.
16
4.
Gifted blacks from this study will show patterns
of giftedness on SOI abilities·, different from those shown
by Anglos from expected scores.
Chapter 2
THE REVIEW OF THE SELECTED LITERATURE
SOI STUDY RELATED TO MEMORY AND SPELLING
Tannir (1976), investigated the effect of an experimental 3-month symbolic memory program to advance the
spelling performance of first grade students.
The psycho-
logical and theoretical background for this study was
Guilford's "Structure-of-Intellect":
(SI), and the inter-
pretation and instructional uses of the Structure o£
Intellect (SOI) by Mary Meeker.
The statistical design
used (the Solomon Four-Group Design), made explicit the
external ·validity factors of testing and the interaction
of testing and treatment.
The statistical treatments used
were t-tests, analysis of variance, and analysis of
covariance.
Criterion measures were the Spelling Test,
Lower> Pr>imar>y, For>m W of the Califor>nia Achievement Test
(1957 with 1963 norms), and the Str>uctur>e of Intellect
(SOI), Lear>ning Abilities Test (1975).
Students were
randomly assigned to pretesting and treatment.
Posttests
were administered to all students in eight first grade
classes, totaling 170 students.
The study occurred during the fourth, fifth, and
sixth months of first grade (December, 1975 to February,
17
18
1976), only 18 instructional lessons on symbolic memory
were used on the experimental students.
Eighteen instruc-
tional lessons of other SOI intellectual activities
excluding symbolic memory were used with control students.
All lessons were developed by the SOI Institute in California.
Time of instruction was equal for both groups.
All lessons were given in the students' own classroom by
two experimenters who alternated in their instruction
between the two groups.
Statistical results showed that after treatment, the
experimental students scored significantly higher than the
control students on the symbolic memory subsection of the
SOI Learning Abilities Test.
Although the experimental
students did not score significantly higher than control
students in spelling, their symbolic memory scores and
spelling scores were significantly correlated at the .01
level.
The findings of this study indicate that symbolic
memory skills can be improved by instruction in first
grade students.
Further study investigating spelling and
symbolic memory was suggested.
SOI STUDY RELATED TO CRITICAL THINKING
Landis (1976) investigated the Psychological Dimensions of Three Measures of Critical Thinking and TwentyFour Structure-of-Intellect Tests for a Sample of Ninth-
19
Grade Students.
The purpose of this study was to identify
the abilities associated with critical thinking, as
measured by the Curry Test of Critical Thinking (Curry),
the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WatsonGlaser), and Cornell Critical Thinking Test (Cornell), in
relation to the theoretical framework provided by Guilford's Structure-of-Intellect (SOI) Model.
A sample of 122 girls and 113 boys who took all 27
tests were chosen for the calculation of intercorrelations
and factor analyses.
The conclusions were as follows:
(1) in the study of measures of critical thinking, the
appearance of instrument-specific factors would not be an
unexpected outcome,
(2) The SOI model would seem to be a
valid measure of many characteristics of critical thinking
in terms of semantic abilities involving operations of
cognition, convergent production, divergent production,
and evaluation.
SOI STUDY RELATED TO MATHEMATICS
Hernandez
(1977) reported the predictive validity of
particular Structure-of-Intellect (SOI) abilities by
measuring the Prediction of First Grade Mathematics
Achievement from Selected Structure-of-Intellect Factors.
The general research design was a multivariate correlational field design, utilizing multiple regression to test
the predictive validity hypotheses.
Eighty first-grade
20
students whose mean age was 6 years, 5 months were administered a battery of 11 tests measuring SCI-defined
abilities and mathematics achievement test.
The results
of the prediction test indicated that several SOI defined
abilities were predictive of performance on the mathematics
achievement test.
The combined SOI factors, MFU-A, MFU-V,
NMU, NFU, DMU, DFS, EFR, MFU, and EFS yielded a multiple
correlation coefficient of .65, and accounted for 42% of
the variance in total mathematics achievement.
The
strongest predictors were the DMU and EFR abilities,
accounting for a combined 22% of the variance of the total
mathematics score.
This percentage was approximately half
the total predictive power of the selected tests.
The
data indicated that the EFS, DFS, DFR, and both MFU
factors consistently contributed minimally to the prediction of mathematics achievement.
Divergent Reduction of
Semantic Units (DSU) and Evaluation of Figural Relations
(EFR), were the strangest predictors of mathematics
achievement.
SOI STUDY RELATED TO SELF-CONCEPT
Rivet (1977) investigated the relationship between
self-concept and factors of the intellect of children
ages 8 to 12 through factor analytic procedures.
Pre-
selected factors within Guilford's (SI) model, as applied
by Meeker in the Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities
21
Test, were correlated with self-attitudes on Piers-Harris
Children's Self-Concept Scale.
dren were analyzed.
Scores made by 718 chil-
Results indicated that self-concept
related significantly to all SOI-LA operation measures.
The highest correlations were found between total SelfConcept score and Convergent Production score for all
children and the Behavior factor of self-concept and the
Cognition scores.
This study showed that self-concept
covaries with the abilities of the intellect influencing
achievement.
SOI Institute Notes (1978):
(1) reading and mathematics,
SO! studies related to,
(2) reading, and (3) creative
thinking.
1. Ray Klouver at the University of Denver, Colorado
has reported on two studies of correlation between the
SOI-Learning Abilities Test and the Peabody Individual
Achievement Test.
One study was concerned with the kinder-
garten-first grade population, learning disabled; the
second study was concerned with seventh and eighth grade
students.
Those SOI subtests related to the process· .of
reading, those subtests related to arithmetic readiness
and those to accomplished mathematics learning all correlated significantly with the appropriate PIAT subtests.
2. The Fairfax School District, California, that
began a 3-year project in September, 1976, will begin its
dissemination year.
Hugh Cox and Carole Swain designed a
22
study to give children at kindergarten and first grade
levels "Early Success in School."
interested in reading success.
They were particularly
Their 3-year project was
successful.
Conclusions indicated improved academic learning as
evidenced by:
(1) project kindergarteners achieved higher
prereading scores than the comparison group (statistically
significant),
(2) project kindergarteners achieved higher
math scores than the comparison group, though not statistically significant at the .01 level,
(3} project first
graders earned higher reading scores than the comparison
group, but the differences were not statistically significant at the .01 level,
(4) project first graders achieved
higher math scores statistically significant at the .01
level and (5} a comparison of Fairfax pupils, kindergarten
and first grade, May, 1976, with Fairfax pupils before the
Early Success in School project shows:
an upward shift in
the number of pupils .from below the 50th percentile to
above grade level.
3. "The Walnut Schools in Walnut, California did a
pre and post study on gifted students where matched by
age, grade and score, the students were randomly assigned
to experimental divergent production training or MOTS
(more of the same) enrichment.
The experimental students
far exceeded the controls on posttest measures where
creative thinking was the criterion."
23
SOI STUDIES RELATED TO GIFTEDNESS
Speck (1978) reported a comparative analysis in the
factorial structures of the intellect in gifted boys and
girls between the ages of 9 and
10~
years, as measured by
the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised.
A
sample of 100 boys and 100 girls were matched for age
range, for Full Scale IQ scores within a 5-point rahge,
and by sex.
Socioeconomic status data revealed the sample
from white, middle class families.
Results indicated:
(1) that a general intelligence
factor did not emerge for males or females, but distinct
Verbal and Non-Verbal factors did appear for both boys and
girls and for total sample analyses,
(2) that both raw and
scaled data should be analyzed in studies of the WISC-R
and that trait organization has sex differences on the
WISC-R for gifted students and,
(3) that the appropriate-
ness of the WISC-R for identification of gifted students
is in question, since i t is totally lacking in the measurement of divergent thinking.
Speck suggested that since the WISC-R does not tap
Divergent Production, perhaps i t should be used in conjunction with the
Abilities Test
Structur~
of the Intellect Learning
(Meeker and Meeker, 1975), which purports
to measure divergent thinking abilities.
Further investigation is desirable in the area of
educational impact for what sex differences mean to
24
classroom instruction.
According to Speck, Meeker (1978)
stated that most significant sex differences related to
instruction, in her opinion and research, lie in the area
of figural-mathematical content.
Girls are significantly
weaker in the figural-mathematical domain than boys across
all age ranges, and in all intellectual groups studied by
Meeker.
Concluding, Speck states:
It is important to note that the WISC-R purports to measure
12 separate abilities yet yields CQnsistently fewer discrete
factors. The identification and program application of
primary mental abilities has enormous potential for educational goals for all students. Consideration of using a
test to meet the needs of diagnosis and aid the teacher in
educational planning cannot be overlooked in this day of
Individualized Educational Plans for all students. The
primary abilities approach appears to best address itself to
this form of assessment.
(p. 75)
Meeker (1973) investigated Binet protocols of black,
Chicano and Anglo disadvantaged boys for pattern of intellectual abilities as defined in the Meeker Structure of
Intellect (SOI), Analysis of the Binet.
)_
Each ethnic group was subdivided into two groups:
one at age 4.9-5.9, who had no preschool so that there
was no contamination due to formal education and a second
group aged 7-10, who had been in school 4 years.
One question concerned changes in their entering
intellectual abilities as compared with school experience
changes, if any.
A second question concerned group strengths or weaknesses.
This latter has special interest for programming
25
individualized curriculum to maintain entrance strengths
or to remediate weaknesses which affect school achievement.
The following is a summary of the conclusions.
Disadvantaged Gifted. Chicanos:
N
=
24, aged 7-10; N
=
32, aged 4-5; IQ Range 132-144.
Cognition - Figural intelligence is very high upon
entrance and remains high after schooling.
Memory - The majority of memory abilities tested were
low, particularly in the semantic ability.
However, the
advanced memory skills for arithmetic showed gains and
were significantly high.
Evaluation - Figural skills were high upon entry and
remained high.
Convergent Production - The gifted Chicanos tended to
show significantly high academic achievement ability; this
was more in keeping with the pattern of the Anglos.
Divergent Production -
Uncomfortably low.
Disadvantaged Gifted Whites:
N = 64, aged 7-10; N = 33, aged 4-5; IQ Range 132-145.
Cognition - Like the other boys, they came to school
high in figural thinking and maintained it.
The cultural
bias in the test was reflected in their preparation for
school which, except at the transformation and implication
levels were weak and strengthened and strong and became
weak.
26
Memory - On the whole except for the symbolic,
implications was low.
Comparing cognition and memory, it
was as though they were capable and did cognize and track
especially in semantics, but their poor memory was an
evidence of lack of expectation or sets to remember before
they came to school and continued as such.
Evaluation - Figural evaluations was good.
Semantic
evaluation was not generally good except for transformation.
Divergent Production - This was a weak area for them
with the exception of implications.
Convergent Production - This was the highest of the
groups and indicated they would perform convergent tasks
better than the other groups.
It was difficult to explain
the weakness in memory other than it was being affected by
the poverty of the environment.
Disadvantaged Gifted Blacks:
N = 31, aged 4-5; N = 22, aged 7-10; IQ Range 132153.
Cognition - Generally the gifted were high and
retained their strengths in cognition skills with the
exception of transformations of figural thinking.
Memory - Although the young blacks came to school
low at the units level they did not remain low and in
fact in memory for words and ideas, maintained the entering strength.
Relations appeared to be low and remained
27
low, although progress was made in MSS.
They were high at
the systems and implications levels.
Evaluation - Gains were made in evaluation of how
words were related, but other semantic items were weak to
begin with and remained weak.
Divergent Productions - They were the highest scores
of the three groups.
Implications, relations, and_ units
in words were low and remained low, but systems thinking
was high.
Convergent Production - Figural thinking was high
and remained high, with greatest changes occurring in the
semantic implications tasks.
That was, their ability to
do convergent thinking was generally weak and needed
strengthening since this was the school learning set of
abilities and needed special work if they were to maintain
gifted achievement commensurate with their abilities.
Chapter 3
METHOD
This study was designed to investigate black children
in grades one through six who were referred for gifted
testing by their teachers.
was used.
A group screening procedure
The selection for Binet testing was based upon
the children's performance on the Basic SOI-LA.
Forty-
five children were tested on the SOI-LA and from this
group 16 met the criteria for individual assessment.
The
criteria for gifted level was based on 10 out of the 24
subfactors of the SOI-LA test.
Giftedness as defined by
Meeker is a score of 3 years above grade level on at least
3 of the 10 subfactors selected.
The 10 subfactors
selected from the 24 for gifted screening were:
CFU, CMU,
CMR, CMS, MSU, MSS, NST, NSI, DFU, and DMU (see Definitions, p. 14) •
SAMPLE
Boys and girls all black, between and including ages
7 to 12 and from Grade 1 to 6, were selected for the study.
Any number of students were requested for the gifted
screening testing.
The number referred equaled 45.
Selection criteria were based:
28
(1) on teacher judgments
f
29
for exceptional performance,
learning performance,
(2) observation,
(4) leadership,
tion and (6) aural language.
(3) school
(5) motor coordina-
All teachers were encouraged
to refer any children who demonstrated or were believed to
exhibit gifted or talented abilities in all dimensions of
intelligence as defined by Guilford's SI Theory and
Meeker's SOI Learning Abilities Test.
All teachers were
briefed in the five major operational dimensions.
Defini-
tions and explanations were given in detail.
Student selection method was approved by the school
principal and area school psychologist.
Full cooperation
and eager participation was expressed by all personnel
staff involved.
INSTRUMENTATION
The Structure of InteZZect Learning Abilities Test
(SOI-LA) was designed to be administered to a class size
group of 30.
It was administered as a power test and not
a timed test.
It consists of 24 subtests measuring four
Memory factors, three Divergent Production factors, four
Convergent Production factors, four Evaluation factors and
nine Cognition factors.
Only four of the subtests are
verbal (semantic) thus eliminating as much language bias
as possible.
The subtests are listed and defined under
the Definition section in Chapter 1.
The SOI-LA is pre-
dominantly a visual-figural test having only two subtests
.
30
requiring reading skills.
The SOI-LA test, based on Guilford's SI Theory of
Intelligence, was developed in 1975 after 12 years of
research by Mary N. Meeker from the SOI Institute in El
Segundo, California.
It measures the 24 intellectual
abilities found to carry the highest correlation with
expected school learning in reading, arithmetic, and
creativity.
It is a diagnostic instrument based upon
abilities which research studies since 1962 have shown to
constitute student's specific learning abilities.
Instead
of a single score based upon population norms, the SOI-LA
measures individual strengths and weaknesses of abilities
relative to the individual, himself/herself, although age
group norms are provided.
The test is used primarily as
an initial diagnostic tool to prescribe individualized
and/or class sized grouping of curriculum materials based
upon the test results.
Meeker obtained factoral validity by intercorrelating
subtests (Appendix C).
A substantial relationship occurs
between subtests DSR and CSS, CSS and CMS with a correlation coefficient of .57.
A negative
P
of -.11 appears
between MSI and DFU, showing no relationship between the
two subtests.
In the correlation of all other subtests,
there seems to be only a slight overlap of determining
factors.
The SOI-LA is a valid instrument relative to
the purpose and intent of its use.
Different populations
31
show different reliability and validity coefficients but
none interfere with the subfactor definitions.
'
Meeker ,derived expected scores for Grades 1 through
6 (Appendix D) by averaging scores from a variety of testing situations involving mentally gifted minors, learning
handicapped, and general, unclassified respondents.
The
test author offers them as an approximate comparison to
actual scores earned and cautions that the averages are
not population norms.
The SOI-LA deviates from the tradi-
tional use of norms and a criterion against which a child
is rated.
PROCEDURE
The Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test
was administered in group size ranging from numbers 7 to
11 depending on the age/grade level of the children tested.
Primary children were tested in the smaller groups.
testing process was completed over a month period.
session was approximately 1 hour long.
tested in both morning and afternoon.
The
Each
The students were
Testing took place
at a West Los Angeles school, Los Angeles, California.
The examiner followed test administration procedures
as provided in the manual in which each subtest is prefaced with a standardized set of instructions.
Although
adhering to testing procedures and maintaining objectivity
was important, the examiner was permitted to deviate from
32
standard procedures when necessary to get the best possible
results.
The author of the test states in the manual that
the examiner is encouraged to be sensitive to the students
taking the test and "bearing in mind the primary purpose of
the test, there is no reason why individual procedures
should not be used"
{Meeker and Meeker, 1975).
Student selection method was approved by the school
principal and area school psychologist.
Full cooperation
and participation was expressed by all personnel staff
involved.
SCORING
The scoring of the Structure of Intellect Learning
Abilities Test was completed by the examiner who was previously trained by Dr. Mary Meeker, at the1SOI Institute,
El Segundo, California, in scoring procedures.
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
This chapter presents the obtained data identifying,
in a group screening process, gifted and creative disadvantaged elementary black children.
It gives the results
of the statistical treatment to which the data were subjected.
Analyses of the results examines whether there is
sufficient significant information to warrant further in
depth investigation.
TREATMENT OF THE DATA
The data generated from the SOI-LA are presented in
two forms, expected scores and raw scores.
Expected Scores Data for the SOI-LA.
In the 24 sub-
tests of the SOI-LA the ranges for the raw scores on all
of the subtests are not identical; expected scores are
averages for each grade group derived from a variety of
testing situations involving mentally gifted minors,
learning handicapped, and general, unclassified
respondents; the averages are not population norms; they
are offered for the purposes of approximate comparison if
desired.
Raw Scores Data.
These are averages for each grade
33
34
group derived from the sample tested for the study; the
study sample averages are used for purposes of comparison
between the primary and elementary group investigated;
the sample study raw scores are then compared to the
expected scores of each grade group of the basic SOI-LA.
ASSUMPTIONS AND FINDINGS
This descriptive study has been guided by the following assumptions:
1.
Intelligence is a series of differential abili-
2.
The older the children the higher the score on
ties.
the SOI-LA.
3.
Children considered to be gifted by teachers will
obtain scores, on selected subfactors identifying giftedness, 3 years above grade level on three or more subfactors.
4.
Gifted blacks from this study will show patterns
of giftedness on SOI-LA abilities, different from those
shown by Anglos from expected scores.
The findings presented are congruent with the above
assumptions.
Findings for Assumption 1
The findings as shown in Figure 4 and also in Table 3
support the assumption that intelligence is a series of
differential abilities in that children demonstrate
35
different levels of learning ability in different subfactors, demonstrating strengths in certain subfactors while
showing weaknesses in others (see Figure 4 and Table 3).
Findings for Assumption 2
The data for Assumption 2 were analyzed using a onetail t-test comparing Primary and Elementary students on
the subfactors of the SOI-LA.
The statistical analyses
were performed using the SOI Institute Computer Program.
Table 1 presents the results of this analysis in raw
scores.
Statistically significant differences between Primary
and Elementary students were found.
Elementary students
obtained significantly higher scores in the following subfactors:
Cognition
CFS
Cognition of Figural Systems
css
Cognition of Symbolic Systems
CMU
Cognition of Semantic Units
CMR
Cognition of Semantic Relations
CMS
Cognition of Semantic Systems
Memory
MFU- Memory of Figural Units
MSU-V
Memory of Symbolic Units, V:i,.sual
MSS-A
Memory of Symbolic Systems, Auditory
MSS-V
Memory of Symbolic Systems, Visual
Figure 4
EXPECTED SCORES BY GRADE FOR THE SOI-LA TEST
GRADE
CFU
CFC
CFS
CFT
CSR
CSS
CMU
CMR
CMS
MFU
MSU
MSS
MSI
EFU
EFC
ESC
ESS
NFU
NSS
NST
NSI
DFU
DMU
DSR
---,-c
16 ... 10 ... 26 ... 26 ... 8 ... 8 .... 30 ... 25 ... 21 .... 28 ... IS-A .• 18-A.I8 .• 26 .. 17 ... 27 ... 8 ..• ]3 ...• 8 ... 201 .•. 21 .. 56 .• 140 ••• 186
24
29
26 18-V .. 18-V
16 26
9 25 22
28 24
24
16 25 15 25
15
32
52 •• 1]0 ••• 160
197
14
8
20 7 7
27
20
22 ~
14 24 14 24
31
47 •. 120 .•• 1]5
2
42 •. 110 ..• 110
180
13
24 18
25
20 'T(
12 23 13 22
3
37 .• 100 .•.• 95.
AVERAGE ADULT LEVEL IS THE SAME AS 11TH GRADE
12 .... 7 ...23 ... 15 ...6 .... 7 ...23 ....22 ... 19 .1.18 ..
11
.22 ... 12 ...20 ... 7 .1.30 ...•7 ..170., ...20
R y
C 0 MP R E H E N S I 0 N
EVALUATION
CONVERGENT
(ACHIEVEMENT)
I
....19 ... 18.
6
. .••8 •. 148..•. 17
5
4
3
2
...39
?~ ....4 ...
~·
•
7 ... 11 ...0 ....2 .•. 4 .... 9 ..
... ' ... i ...•.. ~ ....0 .... 2" .... 3•... ~. t. 8 ... ~ ... ~ ... ' . , . 5 ... 4 ... J; ..-~.
0
FUl CFC
0
0
CFS
CFT
CSR
MSI
CSS
Directions: Draw a horizontal line at the student's grade level. Plot
the score for each subtest. Connect the scores and read as a graph.
Select materials from the workbooks to match strengths and weak·
nesses. Use these as an individualized program. Three years above
grade level indicates gifted ability. Three years below indicates a
defi cl ency.
t: - ElEIYI1!nrftRY
<P - PR1ti\ARV
Note:
.18 ...29 ...35
We will be happy to receive SOI•LA
scores on gifted blacks and Mexican
Americans which you test to add to
our data.
SOl INSTITUTE
343 Richmond St.
EFU
EFC
ESC
ESS
DSR ..
•=
ANGLO (GIFTED SCREENING FORM BASED ON BINET
IDENTIFIED GIFTED~ NOW AVAILABLE)
0= BLACKS (ABILITIES BLACKS SCORE GIFTED ON--STILL IN DATA COLLECTION FORM;
MEXICAN-AMERICANS (ABILITIES M-A SCORE AT A
GIFTED LEVEL) STILL IN DATA COLLECTION
AND NOT YET AVAILABLE AS A GIFTED FORM
FOR SCREENING.
•=
'.I
J
El Segundo, CA 90245
(213) 322-5532
w
0)
37
Evaluation
EFU
Evaluation of Figural Units
ESC
Evaluation of Symbolic Classes
Convergent Production
NFU
Convergent Production of Figural Units
NSS
Convergent Production of Symbolic Systems
NST
Convergent Production of Symbolic Transformations
Divergent Production
DMU
Divergent Production of Semantic Units
DSR
Divergent Production of Symbolic Relations
Based on these results Assumption 2 is supported in
that the older the children the higher the score on the
SOI-LA (see Table 1).
Findings for Assumption 3
Table 2 presents the frequency data for Assumption 3.
The statistical analyses produced a non-significant chi
square of 9.921, 5 degrees of freedom at the .05 level of
confidence.
However, the data is in the direction of the
stated assumption and thfs lack of significance, among
other things, could be attributed to the small sample for
each grade level.
Thus, the data does not support Assump-
tion 3 which expected children considered to be gifted by
teachers to obtain scores equivalent to 3 years above
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Primary and
Elementary Students on the SOI-LA Subtests
Raw Scores
COGNITION
ELEMENTARY
PRIMARY
Factors
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Df
Mean
CFU
CFC
CFS
CFT
CSR
7.88
4.47
7.47
8.61
2.35
4.00
11.11
11.72
6.16
2.99
1. 80
5.60
2.68
1.11
2.10
3.14
5.25
4 .• 57
16
16
16
17
16
14
16
17
17
4.16
5.70
4.68
3.08
4.93
2.15
MEMORY
14
16
16
16
16
16
css
CMU
CMR
CMS
MFU
MSU-A
MSU-V
MSS-A
MSS-V
MSI
*p
**p
***p
=
=
=
10.66
12.35
14.05
3.82
9.35
4.41
Standard
Deviation
Df
t-Value
9.41
5.37
14.62
9.56
3.08
5.37
14.70
17.16
12.52
3.57
1.86
6.87
4.05
1. 66
2.03
2.59
3.13
3.76
23
23
23
24
23
23
23
24
24
1.49
1. 55
3.66**
0.92
1. 68
2.00*
3.87***
3.92
4.84
13.25
15.25
17.00
10.87
15.33
5.20
2.62
3.05
2.28
4.45
4.08
2.04
23
24
23
23
23
23
2.15*
1. 91
2.40*
5.99***
4.10***
1.18
> .05
> .01
> .001
w
00
~
Table 1 (Continued)
EVALUATION
PRIMARY
Factors
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Df
Mean
EFU
EFC
ESC
ESS
11.88
7.29
9.11
3.33
2.05
1. 35
3.80
1. 49
16
16
16
14
14.33
8.37
13.16
4.29
ELEMENTARY
Standard
Df
Deviation
t-Value
3.04
2.18
4.46
1. 80
23
23
23
23
3.08**
1. 95
3.12**
1. 80
7.75
1. 92
26.60
5~02
23
23
23
23
2.62*
3.97***
4.41***
1. 28
14.34
26.05
25.43
23
23
24
CONVERGENT PRODUCTION
17.73
0.85
70.46
10.50
NFU
NSS
NST
NSI
8.48
.94
24.65
4.71
14
13
14
13
24.83
2.70
107.37
12.58
DIVERGENT PRODUCTION
DFU
DMU
DSR
*p
**p
***p
36.52
33.64
50.47
=
=
=
6.13
24.07
25.95
16
16
16
28.20
59.25
71.20
-2.53
3.24**
2.54*
> • 05
> • 01
> • 001
w
1.0
40
grade level on three or more subfactors identifying giftedness (see Table 2).
Table 2
Frequency of Children Showing Giftedness
by Grade Level on the SOI-LA Test*
I!
Grades
1
I!
2
i
Showing 3 years
above grade level
in 3 or more
areas
Not showing 3
years above grade
level
*N
=
45; X2
=
I
I
II
2
I
I
I
3
I
I
2
0
=
'
I
I
8
I
I
5
7
5
I
I
i
9.921; df
I
I
i
4
I
I
I
I
3
I
I
!
3
i
I
.I
!
I
I
6
I
8
I
I
!
3
II
3
1
I
l
5.
Findings for Assumption 4
Table 3 presents a summary of the data from the
present study with black children, and the comparison with
Anglos and other black children on subfactors which giftedness is most frequently demonstrated according to Meeker's
Binet Identified Gifted Sample.
According to Meeker blacks should show giftedness in
CMS, MSU, MSS, and DFU.
However, blacks in the present
study showed giftedness in CFU, CMU, MSU, MSS, DFU, and
DMU.
The present sample was congruent with Meeker in
three of her four areas, MSU, MSS, and DFU.
Gifted blacks in this study did not show patterns of
giftedness of SOI abilities, different from those shown by
41
Anglos from expected scores.
port Assumption 4.
Thus the data does not sup-
In fact, blacks in this study show
greater similarity in giftedness with Anglos than with
blacks from Meeker's expected scores (see Table 3).
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
The findings of the present study in relation to the
stated assumptions and expectations have to be discussed
specifically.
In terms of Assumption 1, which states Intelligence
is a series of differential abilities, the data supports
this assumption but also suggests that giftedness is
specific.
Instead of defining giftedness as a global
quotient, it should be redefined in the context of specific
abilities.
Assumption 2 states the older the children the
higher the score on the SOI, as presented previously; the
results support the assumption.
However, the relationship
between age and cognitive abilities, as measured by the
SOI-LA, is not perfect.
One interpretation of this could
be that cognitive abilities do follow developmental
sequences.
Assumption 3 states children considered to be gifted
by teachers will obtain scores, on selected subfactors
identifying giftedness, 3 years above grade level on
three or more subfactors.
The data did not support this
42
Table 3
Comparison Between Anglos and Blacks on SOI Identified
Expected Abilities Gifted Subfactors
I
Black Data
from Study
Anglo Expected
CFU
X
16
( 35%)
CMU
X
15
(33%)
CMR
X
9
(2 0%)
CMS
X
0
4
(8%)
MSU
X
0
34
(7 5%)
MSS
X
0
22
( 4 9%)
NST
X
2
( 4%)
NSI
X
10
(22%)
DFU
X
28
( 62%)
DMU
X
12
(26%)
I
I
Black Expected
f
l1o Subtests
D
KEY:
x = subfactors in which giftedness is most frequently
demonstrated according to Meeker's Binet Identified
Gifted Sample by Anglos.
o = subfactors in which giftedness is most frequently
demonstrated by blacks according to Meeker's collected data.
I
43
assumption.
However, the trend was in the direction of
the assumption.
At this stage it is not known if the lack
of significance is due to the scoring criteria of the test,
the subfactors identifying giftedness in the SOI-LA, or to
the small sample size utilized.
More studies are needed
to provide answers to these questions.
It was expected that blacks from this study would
show patterns of giftedness on SOI abilities, different
from those shown by Anglos from expected scores on the
gifted screening form.
Meeker (1977) found Anglos to show
giftedness in 10 subfactors and blacks in 4 subfactors:
CMS, MSU, MSS, and DFU.
However, performance of blacks in
the present study revealed giftedness in seven subfactors:
CFU, CMU, MSU, MSS, NSI, DFU, and DMU.
It should be noted
that Meeker reported only on black males, whereas in the
present study we included both boys and girls.
These differences could be attributed to subject
variability from sample to sample or the unreliability of
the instrument.
In any case, before final conclusions can
be drawn, more data should be collected across groups to
determine differential abilities.
Chapter 5
SUMMARYJ CONCLUSIONS} AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
The Problem
Sufficient evidence exists to support the claim that
the standardized IQ and achievement tests usually used as
screening devices are certainly not adequate in judging
the full intellectual and creative abilities of the urban
minority black child.
Test results often characterize the
student as being below normal in intelligence.
The inade-
quacy of a general index of intelligence seems apparent.
Recent trends have been and are increasingly continuing
toward differentiation.
The problem is that IQ assessments are so general in
kind because they are based on the g-factor and population
distribution of the g-factor that they bear little relationship to treatment.
Identification procedures should
not be centered solely on measures which rely so heavily
on culturally loaded verbal abilities (see Appendices A
and B).
Assessments, for students who are not familiar
with the dominant language, should instead be concerned
with abilities beyond those which have been found to be
44
45
characteristic of persons who achieve at high intellectual
levels.
This study was designed to identify, in a group
screening process, gifted and creative elementary black
students.
These students were selected for screening by
teacher judgments and identification through the use of
the SOI-LA, a non-verbal learning abilities test of
intelligence and creativity.
Theoretical Background
The traditional general concept of intelligence has
been based on the belief that mental tests measure one
basic intellectual ability, called g.
Besides this general
capacity believed to be pure intelligence there were
specific factors,
s, for each different minor type of
ability stemming from but not part of the g factor.
Departing from the traditional theory that links all
mental abilities to a common factor, Thurstone (1938) proposed the multi-factorial theory of intelligence.
claimed that intelligence was multifaceted.
seven specific independent abilities.
He
He identified
Following
Thurstone•s approach of using factor-analytic techniques,
in the late 1950's, Guilford (1967) and his associates
found distinct intellectual abilities beyond those seven
factored by Thurstone.
These abilities formed a pattern
that could be conceptualized along three·dimensions in the
shape of a cube.
This cube depicts the theoretical
46
Structure of Intellect Model (SI)
(Figure 1).
Figure 2
depicts the SOI cube, Meeker's adaptation of the SI Model,
for use with children.
The Guilford Cube is a cross classification of 120
identifiable intellectual abilities.
He classifies the
abilities in three different ways so that categories
intersect with each o£ the dimensions.
The three dimensions of the model specify first the
operation, second the content, and third the product.
Five operations times four Contents times six Products
yields 120 distinct types of intellectual abilities
derived from the intersection of the three-way classification scheme.
The three categories that specify each
factor are coded in terms of a trigram symbol specifying
the Operation, Content and Product, respectively, for the
factor.
Validation studies to support the use of the SI
Theory began in 1962 and extended to 1975.
The reader is
referred to the references for these readings.
Validation for the SOI was quite different.
Meeker
(1966) found that differential memory bore specific relations to language and arithmetic (see Figure 3).
In
summary, visual memory was related to learning language
arts and auditory memory was related to arithmetic.
Feldman (1971) validated Meeker's findings by identifying abilities underlying reading.
He found that first
47
grade children who had not learned to read by the end of
the year and were not mentally defective showed deficits
in EFU-V, EFU-A; MFU-V and MFU-A; CFU-V and CFU-A (see
Definitions).
Hays and Pereira (1972) further validated MFU-V determining that visual memory training of kindergarten and
first grade children significantly improved their reading
achievement.
Ball and Marrifield (1971) isolated SOI abilities in
3, 4, and 5 year olds.
not stable.
They found that the abilities were
It was found that environmental variables
were significantly correlated with the abilities.
The
implication is that cognitive abilities change over time
and therefore students should be, assessed diagnostically
at the earliest years.
Methods
This was an investigatory study designed to select
gifted children through a group screening process utilizing the SOI-LA Learning Abilities Test as the determining
criteria.
The 10 subfactors of the 24 selected were those
Meeker has found to be the most reliable in predicting
giftedness comparable to Binet identified giftedness.
The
10 subfactors selected from the 24 for gifted screening
were:
Cognition of Figural Units, Cognition of Semantic
Units, Cognition of Semantic Relations, Cognition of
Semantic Systems, Memory of Symbolic Units, Memory of
48
Symbolic Systems, Convergent Production of Symbolic Transformations, Convergent Production of Symbolic Implications,
Divergent Production of Figural Units, and Divergent Production of Figural Units.
The sample comprised black boys and girls between and
including ages 7 to 12 and from grades 1 through 6.
sample size was 45.
The
Selection criteria were based on:
(1) teacher judgments for exceptional performance~
(2) observation,
ership,
(3) school learning performance,
(4) lead-
(5) motor coordination, and (6) aural language.
Findings
Findings for Assumption 1 support the assumption that
intelligence is a series of differential abilities in that
children demonstrate different levels of learning ability
in different subfactors, demonstrating strengths in certain subfactors while showing weaknesses in others (see
Figure 4 and Table 3).
Findings for Assumption 2 support the assumption that
the older the children the higher the score on the SOI.
The data were analyzed using a 1-tail t-test comparing
Primary and Elementary students on the subfactors of the
SOI-LA.
Statistically significant differences between
Primary and Elementary students were found at the .05,
.01, and .001 levels of confidence (see Table 1).
Findings for Assumption 3 did not support the assumption that children considered to be gifted by teachers
49
will obtain scores of 3 years above grade level on three
or more subfactors.
The statistical analyses produced a
non-significant Chi-square of 9.921, 5 degrees of freedom
at the .OS level of confidence (see Table 2).
Findings for Assumption 4 do not support the assumption that gifted blacks will show patterns of giftedness
on the SOI-LA gifted screening abilities different from
those shown by Anglos from expected scores.
Gifted blacks
in this study showed giftedness in CFU, CMU, MSU, MSS,
DFU and DMU, as compared to Meeker's gifted black areas:
CMS, MSU, MSS, and DFU.
CONCLUSIONS
Assumption 1 states Intelligence is a series of differential abilities; the data supports this assumption but
also suggests that giftedness is specific.
Instead of
defining giftedness as a global quotient it should be
redefined in the context of specific abilities.
Assumption 2 states the older the children the higher
the score on the SOI, as presented previously, the results
support the assumption.
However, the relationship between
age and cognitive abilities, as measured by the SOI-LA, is
not perfect.
We interpret this to mean that cognitive
abilities do follow developmental sequences and, in fact,
for average general students at grades 1 and 2, only 12 of
the 24 abilities can be used for testing.
50
Assumptio~
3 states children considered to be gifted
by teachers will obtain scores, on selected subfactors
identifying giftedness, 3 years above grade level on three
or more subfactors.
Although the data did not support
this 3-year assumption, the trend was in the direction of
the assumption.
It was expected that blacks from this study would
show patterns of giftedness on SOI abilities, different
from those shown by Anglos from expected scores on the
gifted screening form.
Meeker (1977) found Anglos to show
giftedness in 10 subfactors and blacks in 4 subfactors:
CMS, MSU, MSS, and DFU.
However, performance of blacks in
the present study revealed giftedness in seven subfactors:
CFU, CMU, MSU, MSS, NSI, DFU, and DMU.
It should be noted
that Meeker reported only on black males, whereas in the
present study we included both boys and girls.
Implications
The findings from the present study would tend to
support the position, when assessing cognitive abilities,
of moving away from the one factor or global approach to
that of a multifactor approach.
They suggest that we
should follow the strategy of determining specific abilities instead of just reporting a single score which is
reminiscent of the assumption that intelligence is a
global index.
Another implication is that cognitive abilities are
51
closely associated with socialization and acculturation.
Limitations of the Present Study
The sample size utilized per grade in this study was
too small to make broad generalizations.
At present, we
do not have enough data on the reliability and validity of
the SOI-LA Test.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
In conclusion, the present study has left many
unanswered questions and this researcher is recommending
research in the following areas:
1.
Cross-cultural studies;
2.
In-depth studies within groups;
3.
Comparison of the SOI-LA Test with other scales
for cross-validation; and
4.
Criterion-related studies.
REFERENCES
Ball, R. S. Comparison of Thinking Abilities of 5-YearOld White and Black Children in Relation to Certain
Environmental Factors, Proj. 9-70-0067. Tempe,
Arizona: Arizona State University, 1972.
Bruch, Catherine B. Modification of procedures for
identification of the disadvantaged gifted. Gifted
Child Quarterly, Winter 1971, 15(4), 267-272.
Bruch, C. B. A ratio for identification and development
of the disadvantaged gifted. TAG Gifted Children
Newsletter, 1970, 11(2), 41-48.
Bruch, C. B. The culturally different gifted student:
Identifying the ablest. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 1975, 12(1), 18-2 .
Carlson, D. C., & Meyers, C. E. Language, Memory, and
Figural Ability Hypotheses in Retardates of Mental
Age Four. State of California Department of Mental
Hygiene, Bureau of Research, No. 430, 1967.
Cattell, R. B. Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 1963, 54, 1-22.
Dobzhansky, T.
Differences are not deficits.
Today, December 1973, 97-101.
Psychology
Feldman, B. Prediction of first-grade reading achievement
from selected structure-of-intellect factors. Unpubllshed doctoral dissertat1on, University of Southern
California, 1970.
Guilford, J.P., & Hoepfner, R. Analysis of intelligence.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.
Guilford, J. P. The nature of human intelligence.
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.
New
Hays, B. M., & Pereira, E. R. Effect of visual memory
training on reading ability of kindergarten and first
grade children. Journal of Experimental Education,
1972, 41(1), 33-38.
52
53
Hernandez, ·c. Prediction of first grade mathematics
achievement from selected structure-of-intellect
factors.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, 1977.
Herrnstein, R.
44-61.
I.Q.
The Atlantic Monthly, 1971, 228,
Hilliard, P.
Identifying gifted minority children through
the use of non-verbal tests. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Yeshiva University, 1975.
Jensen, Arthur R.
achievement?
1-20.
How much can we boost IQ and scholastic
Harvard Educational Review, 1969, ~'
Jensen, Arthur R.
4-6.
Replies.
Psychology Today, 1969, 3,
Jensen, Arthur R. The differences are real.
Today, December 1973, 80-86.
Psychology
Landis, R. E. The psychological dimensions of three
measures of critical thinking and twenty-four structure of 1ntellect tests for a sample of ninth-grade
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1976.
Lesser, S., Fifer, G., & Clark, D. H. Mental abilities of
children from different social-class and cultural
groups. .Monograph of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 1965, 30(4).
(Monograph)
McCartin, Sr. R. A., & Meyers, C. E. An exploration of
six semantic factors at first grade. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1966, 1, 74-94.
Meeker, Mary N.
Immediate memory factors and school
achievement in ninth grade boys. Unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted to Journal of OrthoPsychiatry by M. Meeker and c. E. Meyers, University
of Southern California, 1966.
Meeker, Mary, & Meeker, Robert. Strategies for assessing
intellectual patterns in Black, Anglo, and MexicanAmerican boys--or any other children--and implications for education. Journal of School Pyschology,
Winter 1973, 11(4), 341-350.
Meeker, M., & Meeker, R.
Structure-of-intellect: Its
interpretations and uses. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill
Publishing Co., 1969.
54
Meeker, Mary N.
The structure of intellect: Its interpretations and uses. Oh1o: Charles E. Merr1ll
Publishing Co., 1969.
Mercer, J. R.
IQ: The lethal label.
September 1972, 44-47, 95-98.
Psychology Today,
Meyers, C. E., Sitkei, E. G., & ~Jatts, C. A. Further
ability factor hypotheses at six years. Unpublished
study, Socio-Behavioral Laboratory, Pacific State
Hospital, Pomona, California, 1966.
Orpet, R. E., & Meyers, C. E.
Six structure-of-intellect
hypotheses in six-year-old children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1966, ~, 341-46.
Rivet, B. The relationship between self-concept and factors of the intellect of c.hildren ages eight to
twelve.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of
Human Behavior, United States International University, San Diego, 1977.
Schmadel, E. The relation of creative thinking abilities
to school achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1960.
Shuey, A. M.
The testing of Negro intelligence.
York:
Soc1al Science Press, 1966.
New
Sitkei, E. G.
Comparative structure of intellect in middle and lower class four-year-old ch1ldren of two
ethnic groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, August 1966.
SOI Institute Newsletter, 1978. Studies related to:
(1) Reading and mathematics, Ray Klouver, University
of Denver, Colorado; (2) Reading, The Fairfax School
District, California; (3) Creative Thinking, The
Walnut Schools in Walnut, California; SOI Institute,
El Segundo, California.
Speck, N.
Sex differences in factors of intelligence on
the Wise-R in gifted children. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Texas Womens University, 1978.
Stott, L., & Ball, R. S. Factor analysis of infant mental
scales. Merrill Palmer Institute Publications, 1963,
1966.
Tannir, D. C. V., Ed.D. An investigation of the effect of
an experimental structure-of-intellect symbol1c
memory program on the spell1ng performance of first
55
grade students.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
State University of New York at Albany, 1976.
Thurstone, L. L. Primary mental abilities.
Monographs, 1938, No. 1.
Psychometric
Torrance, E. P.
I was a block but nobody builded me. A
paper prepared for the Association for the Gifted,
Council for Exceptional Children, Miami Beach, Fla.,
April 20, 1971.
Torrance, E. P. Understanding the fourth grade slump in
creative thinking, Cooperative Research Project No.
994, Contract No. SAE-8995, Office of Education,
Bureau of Research, Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 1967.
56
APPENDIX A
ACCUMULATED TOTALS OF EXPECTED SCORES
FOR THE BINET
.
\
57
Accumul•ted Tot•t• of Expected Scor• by Age Level• for the BINET (LMI
z
0
j:
z
z
,..
0
j:
c
=
...1
c
a:
o.
""z
zo
111c:JI-
a:u
~~~~
>Q
z
zIll ...
1-0
~:~u
a:=
1110
~
c
a:
=
<J
u
0
zc
::i
Ill
1&.
,..
10
Ill
"
0
5
0
1
7
0
6
5
2
13
0
16
5
6
l5
IV
2l
7
9
[V-6
28
8
v
34
VI
c
en
a:
0
l&.z
"'o
z_
,..... ...a:
u
::i
:::t
10
10
j:
~
zo
PRODUCTS
CONTENTS
OPERATIONS
...
10
Ill
rn
rn
z
0
10
c
Ill
j:
:I
Oen
z
j:
c
z
...1
=
c~
u
Ill
a:
en
en
4
2
1
3
3
0
0
2
ll
7
2
5
5
0
0
l5
2
13
l5
2
5
8
0
0
0
22
2
l8
l7
"
8
9
3
1
l9
0
Z6
2
Z8
23
5
13
9
3
3
13
2l
a
Z9
2
39
25
7
11
l2
"
5
8
15
24
a
39
2
qQ
29
8
18
111
6
6
qQ
lO
1&
Z8
l
43
3
~9
32
9
22
l5
7
10
VII
43
ll
20
32
2
~5
4
59
35
lO
25
11
9
12
VIII
II&
15
22
34-
3
~5
4
7l
31
lO
27
l9
ll
16
[X
~T
l9
25
35
5
~7
9
75
39
lO
n
22
12
11
X
52
2l
Z6
31
8
50
ll
83
~
lO
34
23
l2
2l
XI
55
23
Z9
38
8
51
ll
91
II&
ll
36
25
13
22
XII
58
25
34
39
9
52
13
100
~9
ll
qQ
28
13
211
XIll
6l
27
35
42
9
55
13
106
so
11
42
32
13
26
XIV
66
Z9
35
47
ll
59
l9
llO
51
l2
""
36
11
28
AA
76
31
31
51
14
62
24
123
56
13
47
41
21
31
SAI
80
36
38
SJ
l5
63
28
m
59
13
sa
43
211
33
SAil
87
38
4(}
57
20
63
n
148
63
111
55
45
28
37
SA III
93
Ill
~1
62
22
66
311
l59
67
l'+
6a
50
29
39
u
:::t
Ill
:I
Ill
ll
3
1
l
11-6
7
"
Ill
lO
lll-6
c:J
0
AGE
COPYlll GMT MAY N, lt!EKER ,"
>
1963, 1975
Oa: >0
-a:
UA. a a.
:::t
S,Q,I, INST!TUTI,
:I
Ill
lllf
Cl-
MIN STREIT, EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA
A.
3!
902115
58
APPENDIX B
ACCUMULATED TOTALS OF EXPECTED SCORES
FOR THE WISC AND THE WISC-R
ACCUMULATED TOTALS OF EXPECTED SCORES BY AGE LEVELS FOR TilE WISC
OPERATIONS
PRODUCTS
CONTENTS
..
cJ)
...."'...
.....]I
-...
7.
1-
1-
"'
0
<:)
0
.....]I
z
0
7.
0
>c:
0
::£
>c.:
0
::£
-<:
"'::;:
::;:
"'
>
UJ
7
7
12
I2
IS
IS
lb
18
19
20
22
JI
36
42
46
52
57
bl
6.\
b6
u
S. II· S. 3
s. 4. 5. 7
S. 8- S. II
6.0·6.3
6.4·6.7
6.8-6.11
7.0-7. 3
7. 4- 7. 7
7. R- 7. II
20
B
20
22
22
26
28
30
33
ZJ
25
25
!)
~0
!)
32
II
35
38
40
12
12
14
41
15
17
17
17
18
18
IS
211
20
23
l2
H
22
32
B
33
25
26
26
27
27
35
36
311
37
34
z
0
1-<
::>
__,
AGE
u
c
9
:::;:q~rfm
8.0-8.3
8.4-8. 7
8. 8-8. II
9.0-9.3
9.4-9.7
9.8-9.11
10.0-10.3
10.4-10.7
Ill. 8 · 10. II
11.0-II.J
11.4-11.7
11.8-11.11
12.0- I 2.3
12.4-12.7
12.8-12. II
13.0-13.3
11.4-13.7
13.8-13.11
14 .II- 14 .3
14. 4- 14. 7
14.8-14.11
IS. 0- 15.3
I 5. 4- IS. 7
15.8-15.11
35
41
H
46
48
49
Sl
54
ss
59
bO
I• I
65
69
69
75
75
76
7b
78
78
82
82
83
48
so
S.l
ss
56
59
62
63
67
r.a
69
73
77
77
83
83
84
84
8b
8b
91
91
92
27
25
25
26
27
27
27
29
2!1
37
37
27
27
27
38
39
27
27
38
27
38
38
38
S.l
SR
60
fl3
65
68
.,_
"'
z
<:)
c.:
"'
<:)
0
"-
"-
ss
Ill
h!l
110
88
!I~
H
98
1114
.ll
u
::>
33
H
.H
35
39
3!1
J!J
35
37
40
4.\
44
45
so
SI
52
55
5?
fill
bl
b2
(13
lib
b3
(t~l
7I
71
H
H
4l
43
H
47
47
0
ca:
~
ll)
3
3
h4
~
'.
"'
4
4
84
!12
!19
103
110
l4
4Z
42
4fl
4h
4h
4!1
51
51
55
ss
ss
:.
:.J
52
58
m:wwr tttT .~; I \W\
73
!10
93
!17
98
IIIII
103
IllS
1117
Ill
Ill
112
49
...__,
...
u
"
6
b
7
::;:
,...
!JJ
8
8
Ill
Ill
Ill
113
115
711
7ft
RIJ
69
71
74
7!1
ss
83
85
!12
89
!12
!14
1112
!I~
JCI.t
106
Ill
113
117
llU
bll
btl
5~
l•l
~~~
II!
12~
..blb4
114
Ill
1•!1
b:l
12~
l~b
IH
ll!l
I.H
135
137
137
5(1
5b
1•11
bll
1111
~
h!t
IIH
121
121•
IB
'-----
NOTE: 1::p#- SIGNIFIES CODE CHANGE
"'
!JJ
! I
25
3!
3!
:IS
42
H
!Ill
1111
ltn
1117
1111
51>
56
51•
z
~
I3
13
14
so
52
52
511
1--
35
57
1,;9
""
...
u
II
li>FA l<:,f:)
(>5
'·
OJ
·~
.....
__,
~
::>
IS
211
24
28
32
3b
39
40
""
"0
....:.
:.J
75
76
82
R3
85
RS
__,
~
>
z
0
·~
E
1Ul
.
c
"'
."'
"...
::>
0
...
..c...
D.
u
.
"'
....
....""
"0
E
0
0
;:::
Ill
D.
.."'...e
c
:.>:
c
47
Ul
1?.
::>
4b
52
5!1
b7
75
83
89
!12
1{}\!:f:t
74
77
81
84
89
bO
96
114 10!
b7 IllS
hS
1118
H
115
75 liS
111
1!11
R! 125
87 128
89 13!
9~
IJ7
94 n!l
4!1
Sl
56
57
59
!IIi
!IS
Ill :I
1111
IllS
lOS
1117
Ul
Ul
;:::
14!
l4b
151
1s:;
157
157
lbl
...z
1--
::>
4!1
55
fl.!
711
79
87
92
97
Ill :I
Ul
cr.
...
]I
:l':
-:>
"0
.....
~
OJ
·~
z
0
....
Ul
::;:
"'
Ul
::;:
"'
~
1--
1-
"'"'
Ul
>-
>-
-I
Ul
10
12
1·1
Ill
12
H•
lh
18
Ill
21
21
ll
lJ
~~
23
27
27
29
23
28
28
29
311
311
II
I7
19
21
ll)
...:
"'
Ul
z
~
I
I
I
I
l4
25
Zh
...
...:
u
.......
...
...
...,_
0
u.
I2
Ul
1--
0
"'
I7
I7
2!!
22
:.
Ul
z
1--
1-
I~
.....
7.
0
7.:
6
6
7
7
7
9
9
9
10
2
3
3
4
4
z
0
-<:
u
::;
...
...
::;:
!I
!I
Ill
10
II
13
14
14
16
W:(t(:}
7!1
82
Rl1
89
94
1111
1117
110
113
121
124
l2b
Ill
IH
138
14.'\
145
149
152
157
15!1
163
163
lb7
29
29
30
B
.;,;
38
u
3!1
42
411
3!
3:1
H
3h
3b
3(,
.\8
.lR
211
31
.H
33
H
J4
36
H
.n
40
·Ill
411
42
42
.• 7
39
n
·19
49
511
51
51
51
54
54
54
H
H
H
~5
-
·12
45
g
42
0
47
42
47
4-1
49
4!1
4!1
H
44
---
4
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Ill
II
12
I2
13
13
14
IS
IS
16
16
17
18
18
18
8
8
9
10
12
ll
n
13
n
n
14
14
15
IS
IS
16
18
19
1!1
211
20
22
23
23
24
24
25
26
26
26
~0
2~
211
20
20
20
21
21
21
ll
28
28
28
28
29
30
1-.-
L
.....0
.au
U'\ U'\
., .,
.,
.,
'011
C:t;>
a.
U'\
'0
Ill II
.-a::
II
II •
.C:N
"'II
•
Uo>
:I
u
'Oil
0 ·-.
L.O
Q.:::l
II "'
c!
.c:
. .,u
_.,
..
!!!
0
t;
.....
a::
0
311
.\0
-------
SOl INSTITUTE
11• MAIN ITRIIT
@
Hary Heeker
IL IIGUNDO, CA 10241
Sa
tJtJI
m--
Ul
1.0
ACCUMULATED
TOTALS OF
I :;~Jtl
~Ills CII.\R~ I
I'OES :'\OT I:'>Cll'DEf
EXPECTED
OPERATIONS
Cl.lfii:"G ..\ OH D.
-1
'
BY
2:
~
N
<
:I
•
Cl
.....
z:
.......z:
...z: ...
.......0
2:
>c:
AGE
§
8u
6.0-6.3
6.4-6.7
6.8-6.11
37
47
49
42
53
55
7.0-7.3
7.4-7.7
7.8-7.11
51
54
60
57
60
87
13
16
9.0-8.3
8.4-8.7
8.8-8.11
62
65
87
69
72
74
. 9.0-9.3
9.4-9.7
9.8-9.11
69
73
73
10.0-10.3
10.4-10.7
10.8-10.11
:::>
!C
~:II
:o!
..:a
3
2:
~
B
Ill
.....
... 5
~
0
It
i:i""
~
~
0
u
~
"...
"'
16
18
20
22
28
29.
5
6
8
29
38
38
20
24
27
32
34
37
7
7
42
1
19
19
20
27
27
28
38
41
41
78
80
1110
21
22
23
30
31
32
78
78
83
1113
96
91
~3
ll.0-11.3
11.4-11.7
11.8-11.11
84
88
118
12.0-12.3
12.4-12.7
12.8-12.11
90
92
94
13.0-13.3
13.4-13.7
13.8-13.11
10
11
..:a
~
:::>
...
Cl
"'
5
6
7
49
48
50
58
7
9
9
8
8
8
49
53
53
56
60
80
JO
10
11
41
45
45
9
10
11
53
57
57
80
84
84
45
47
49
11
25
28
32
34
35
57
59
84
84
87
92
96
96
26
28
28
36
38
38
51
52
53
98
102
29
29
30
39
39
40
96
96
98
104
104
108
31
31
32
41
14. 0-1·1. 3
14.4-14.7
H. 8- H. II
101
101
103
109
109
ttl
32
32
33
15.0-15.3
15.4-15.7
15.8-15.11
103
104
107
33
33
34
44
112
115
16.0-16.3
16.4-18.7
16.8-16.11
108
110
116
119
120
35
35
35
---~----
too
I
17
\:>
c
0
.....
Ill
!t
f!...
f!...
...
::>
::>
~
u
i.,i:l
i>-
111
2:
2:
w
z:
0
!t
Ill
:II
r.l
1:!111
N
c
...z
0
!C:II
z
0
Ill
z
0
j::
ii
::;
.;;
Ill
2:
..:
-Po
~
23
28
29
19
24
24
21
26
28
24
29
31
6
8
8
8
10
12
13
16
IR
54
58
63
28
28
30
30
33
35
27
27
31
30
34
36
33
37
39
8
8
10
12
14
14
18
20
21
18
19
68
70
72
31
33
34
36
38
39
32
34
34
39
40
41
42
43
10
10
44
to
15
16
17
22
23
24
11
12
20
21
39
41
41
37
40
42
45
48
48
11
17
21
21
34
38
36
41
44
lt
ll
19
19
26
12
78
81
83
21
22.
22
88
89
92
37
38
40
42
43
45
43
72
12
13
13
44
41
H
46
-tA
48
50
52
12
J2
13
19
21
21
26
29
29
72
74
74
13
14
14
23
12
12
64
86
66
96
100
101
41
42
42
47
46
48
48
49
49
49
51
51
53
55
55
13
14
t4
22
24
25
30
32
33
54
55
55
13
13
13
68
70
70
76
78
78
14
14
14
24
24
2-1
104.
43
45
45
49
51
51
53
53
55
51
52
52
55
56
58
14
14
15
25
25
25
33
33
33
58
56
59
13
13
"14
70
70
75
78
78
83
15
15
15
25
25
25
52
52
53
55
55
58
53
53
56
57
57
15
113
48
46
47
r.o
15
27
27
27
35
35
:15
59
60
60
11
11
75
75
75
83
15
83
15
18
116
117
119
48
48
50
54
54
83
26
28
27
511
59
59
. 59
56
58
57
61
61
62
16
18
16
27
28
28
35
36
:16
60
80
62
14
15
15
75
75
79
83
83
87
18
16
119
121
122
52
53
56
58
5!1
59
59
61
57
57
59
62
62
17
26
27
28
so
45
16
16
16
28
29
29
:17
47
47
47
62
83
63
15
15
18
79
79
79
87
17
11
11
29
29
29
124
127
129
54
54
56
61
61
63
61
62
62
59
59
59
64
16
11
30
31
1l
1l
12
13
14
14
17
11
18
21
24
lOS
108
44
...."
e ...5 ...u..:
..:a
..:
20
24
25
II
"
c
L
!t
Ill
0:
E
>.,>- ...""
111
"'.....
111
40
48
52
44
34
~
....44
13
-
-;-
111
-.....
...
Cl
...u..:a u......:a
fa
"'....
"'....
"...a
c
lll
Ill
<
c.
>:
c
c.
.......
tlN
ic.
W ISC- R
TUE
2:
""c.
a
.....
FOR
PRODUCTS
111
:::>
0
0
LEVElS
2:
0
""
....
...
...
Po
111
AGE
CONTENTS
...(j
2:
(lj
SCORES
26
c
"
"
:.:
...c
,...
...
...
~
tiz
.,0
,....
"'
M
I!>
:r.
Ill
--
ttl
---
·--
41
42
43
43
....
44
'
14
-·-
88
88
....
Ill
Ill
-
--
64
64
64
15
11
:u
:16
36
38
40
40
:;j
"'
"'
:.:
:.;
:7.
~
<:
"'
!:
G
a:
>c.
0
CJ
0'1
0
61
APPENDIX C
INTERCORRELATION OF SOI-LA SUBTEST TOTALS
INTERCORRELATION OF SOI-LA SUBTEST TOTALS
Grade levels
Kindergarten
and First
CFT
••oFu .............47
CSS
CMR
.33
.37
CMS
MFI
MSS
MSI
EFU
NST
NSI
CMU
.48
.44
.62
.47
.49
.69
.19
.34
.&6
.66
.64
.62
.64
.62
.28
.08
.62
.34
.28
.41
.47
.48
.28
.39
• "CMR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • .66
.48
.42
.63
.60
.37
.37
.38
••eMS ...............•..•••..•.•.•...•.•.•.64
.68
.67
.81
.61
.14
.32
""MFI ............. , ..•.•........•••....•. , .••..•.61
.89
.68
.44
.44
.27
• "MSS ..............•....•..•.•... , . • . • • • . . . . . . • • • . . . • .66
.67
.82
.07
.26
• "MSI. ..................•.••.....••....••.•..••.......•.•••..64
.46
.33
.19
""EFU .....................••.•.•• , .•..•.••........•.•. ~ ...•.•..... 66
.47
.37
""NST ...........•....... , .•.....•....•••.•••......••..•••••••..•..•.•...24
.63
"NSI ............•.....•.•............•.•.•••••..•...•••.•••...•.•.•.....•.....32
••en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
.43
•css ..........................38
• "Kindergarten and First IN • 1911
"First IN • 951
Grade Levels
Valid .. Two and Three
Coefl . IN • 1921
DSR
CFS
CFT
CSS
CMR
CMS
MFI
MSS
MSI
EFU
!=SC
ESS
DFU ........34
.14
.20
.23
DSR .............. 22
.32
.157
CFS .......•..•..•...... 26
.38
CFT ..............•...........43
NSS
NST
NSI
CMU
.28
.22
.19
.20
,07
.00
.09
.18
.09
.11
.31
.20
.48
.47
.23
.49
.28
.44
.36
.22
.43
.21
.68
.42
.21
.22
.1&
.28
.18
.27
.08
.23
-.11
.23
.14
.08
.28
.37
.32
.40
.29
.01
.36
.2&
.1&
.3&
.23
.38
.80
css ................................46
.67
.28
.34
.45
.64
.29
.40
.22
.42
.66
.39
.81
CMR ............•.............••.•.•....•.64
.32
.34
.21
.27
.42
.23
.41
.43
.60
..29
.87
CMS ..............•...........••...•...•..•.....32
.63
.32
.38
.48
.42
.23
.40
.4&
.48
.38
.22
MFI ........................•.....•................••.32
.29
.28
.12
.29
.25
.22
.88
MSS .........•.......•......•....•••..••.•••..•..••• , •••.•••39
.39
.36
.20
.41
.38
.32
.27
.83
.18
MSI ............•..•.............•..•....••.•...•...•••.••••.••.•.2&
.27
.18
.11
.28
.24
.53
EFU .. , ......•..............•......••...•.•.••.•.••. , ..•••.•.•.•.....• -"-. .38
.28
.10
.40
.39
.21
.60
ESC ............•................•.•...•.•.....•.•.•..•.. , •••. ,, .....•....•...29
.47
.44
.38
.30
ESS ........••..............•....•.••.•.•.•..•..•....•...•• , •.••....•••.•...•.......28
.29
.25
.30
.83
NSS .............•.•.•..........•..•..•.... -•..•....•...•••••..••.•..••••. , ..•..•....•..... 24
.18
.I&
NST ......... , ...•.................••.•........•....•........................................... 61
.96
.43
.96
NSI. ........•..........................•.................••.•.........................................43
.969 · CMU Math portion
.93 · CMR Reading portion
.82
.87
.86
SOIINSrlrUrE
214 M.ln
El SlfUndo, CA 91U45
MEAN
S.D.
.&
3.8
1.3
4.7
1.8
2.3
8.9
4.3
6.8
8.0
4.9
2.7
1.7
.4
18.8
4.6
3.8
2.8
1.3
1.8
1
1.3
2.5
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.2
1.3
.7
11.4
1.8
~2131322·5995
0'1
N
63
APPENDIX D
EXPECTED SCORES FOR SOI-LA TEST
' '
EXPECTED SCORES BY GRADE FOR THE SOI-LA TEST
GRADE
CFU
CFC
CFS
CFT
CSR
CSS
CMU
CMR
CMS
MFU
MSU
MSS
MSI
EFU
EFC
ESC
ESS
NFU
NSS
NST
NSI
DFU
DMU
DSR
16 ... 10 ... 26 ... 26 ... B... B.... 30 ... 25 ... 21 .... 28 ... IS-A .. 18-A.I8 .. 26 .. 17 ... 27 ... 8 ... 33 .... 8 ... 201 ... 21 .. 56 .. JltO ••• 186
24
29
26
18-v .. 18-v
16
26
15
9
25
22
28
24
24
16 25 15
25
32
197
52 .. no ... 16o
14
8
20
7
7
27
20
22
17
14 24 14
24
31
47 .. 120 ... 135
23
13
180
42 .. 110 •.. 110
24
18
25
20
12 23 13
22
37 .. 100 .... 95
AVERAGE ADULT LEVEL IS THE SAME AS 11TH GRADE
11
12 .... 7 ... 23 ... 15 ...6 .... 7 ... 23 ....22 ... 19 .1.18 ... 16 ... 17 ... 10 .1.22 ... 12 ...20 ... 7 .1.30 .... 7 .. 110.... 20 1 .32 ...90 ...60
C 0 MP R E H E N S I 0 N
M E M 0 R Y
EVALUATION
CONVERGENT
(ACHIEVEMENT)
DIVERGENT
(CREATIVITY)
6
11 ....6 ... 22 ... 13 ...5 ....6 ... 13 .... 19 ... 16 .1.17 ... 16 ... 16 ... 8 .1.19 ... 11 ... 18 ... 7 .1.23 . .' ..6 ..148.... 17
5
10 .... 5 ... 19 ... 11 ...4 .... 5 ... 11 .... 18 ... 15 .I .16 ... 15 ... 15 ... 7 .I .16 ... 10 ... 16 ...6 .I .22 ... .4 .. 123.... 16 I .22 ... 53 ...49
4
10 ....5 ... 13 ... 11 ... 3 ....4 ... 9 .... 17 ... 14 .I .15 ... 15 ... 14 ... 6 .I .16 ... 9 ...14 ...6 .I .21 ....3 .. 120.... 16 I .20 ...42 ...46
3
9 ....4 ... 9 ... 10 ... 2 .... 3 ... 7 .... 14 ... 12 .I .13 ... 14 ... 12 ... 4 . I .14 ... 8 ...13 ...2 .I .18 ....2 .. 90....13 I .18 ...40 ... 39
2
7 ... .4 ... 7 ... 8 ...o ....2 ... 4 .... 9 ... 1 .I .12 ... 7 ... 4 ... 1 .I .11 ... 7 ... 8 ...o. I .16 ....o .. 33.... 6 I .16 ... 29 ...35
5" ....3 ... 2 ... 4 ...o ....o ... 2" .... 3" ... 4".
•.. • • • •
CFU
0
0
0
CFC
CFS
CFT
CSR
. 6 ... 4 ... 1" ...0 . . 8 ....0 ..
.. ..
•
0
css
CMU
CMR
CMS
MFU
Directions: Draw a horizontal line at the student's grade level. Plot
the score for each subtest. Connect the scores and read as a graph.
Select materials from the workbooks to match strengths and weaknesses. Use these as an individualized program. Three years above
grade level indicates gifted ability. Three years below indicates a
deficiency.
Note:
We will be happy to receive SOI-LA
scores on gifted blacks and Mexican
Americans which you test to add to
our data.
SOl INSTITUTE
343 Richmond St.
MSU
MSS
MSI
EFU
EFC
ESC
'0
ESS
NFU
NSS
.24 ...62 ... 50
.. •.. ..
5.... 1
NST
NSI
. 9 ... 40" ... 25
DFU
DMU
•
0
DSR ..
•=
•=
ANGLO (GIFTED SCREENING FORM BASED ON BINET
IDENTIFIED GIFTED. NOW AVAILABLE)
0= BLACKS (ABILITIES BLACKS SCORE GIFTED ON--STILL IN DATA COLLECTION FORM;
MEXICAN-AMERICANS (ABILITIES M-A SCORE AT A
GIFTED LEVEL) STILL IN DATA COLLECTION
AND NOT YET AVAILABLE AS A GIFTED FORM
FOR SCREENING.
El Segundo, CA 90245
(213) 322-5532
0"1
.1::-