识别资优学业不良：常用方法的效度证据。
The identification of gifted underachievement: Validity evidence for the commonly used methods.
机构信息
School of Education, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
出版信息
Br J Educ Psychol. 2022 Sep;92(3):1133-1159. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12492. Epub 2022 Feb 24.
BACKGROUND
Much confusion exists about the underachievement of gifted students due to significant variations in how the phenomenon has been identified. From a review of the literature, five methods were found to be commonly used to identify gifted underachievement.
AIMS
The purpose of the study was to assess the equivalence of the commonly used methods to identify gifted underachievement, and to determine which of these methods may be optimal.
SAMPLE
Data were collected from a school in Sydney, Australia.
METHOD
Three measures of convergence (i.e., difference in proportions, phi association, and kappa agreement) were used to assess the equivalence of the identification methods, while latent class analysis was used to determine the optimal identification method.
RESULTS
The convergence evidence suggested that the commonly used identification methods may not be considered convergent, while the criterion evidence indicated that one of the five identification methods may have strong levels of criterion validity.
CONCLUSIONS
A conclusion was reached that the simple difference method may be the most valid method to identify gifted underachievement.
背景
由于对这一现象的识别方法存在很大差异，因此对于资优学生的学业不良存在很多混淆。通过对文献的回顾，发现有五种常用的方法来识别资优学业不良。
目的
本研究旨在评估常用的识别资优学业不良的方法的等效性，并确定这些方法中哪些可能是最优的。
样本
数据来自澳大利亚悉尼的一所学校。
方法
使用三种收敛性测量方法（即比例差异、phi 关联和kappa 一致性）来评估识别方法的等效性，同时使用潜在类别分析来确定最佳识别方法。
结果
收敛性证据表明，常用的识别方法可能不被认为是收敛的，而标准证据表明，五种识别方法中的一种可能具有较强的标准有效性。
结论
得出的结论是，简单差异法可能是识别资优学业不良最有效的方法。
Zotero 插件