ERIC ED368099: Information-Processing in Gifted versus Nongifted African-American, Latino, Filipino, and White Children: Speeded versus Nonspeeded Paradigms.

17 Pages·1994·0.4 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
EC 302 844
ED 368 099
Saccuzzo, Dennis P.; And Others
AUTHOR
Information-Processing in Gifted versus Nongifted
TITLE
African-American, Latino, Filipino, and White
Children: Speeded versus Nonspeeded Paradigms.
94
PUB DATE
R206A00569
CONTRACT
17p.; In: Saccuzzo, Dennis P.; And Others.
NOTE
Identifying Underrepresented Disadvantaged Gifted and
Talented Children: A Multifaceted Approach. (Volumes
1 and 2); see EC 302 840.
Information
Research/Technical (143)
Reports
PUB TYPE
Analyses (070)
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
EDRS PRICE
Ability Identification; Aptitude Tests; *Cognitive
DESCRIPTORS
Processes; Comparative Analysis; Cultural
Differences; Educational Diagnosis; Elementary
Education; *Ethnic Groups; Evaluation Methods; Factor
Analysis; *Gifted; *Intelligence Tests; Minority
Group Children; *Reaction Time; Student Evaluation
ABSTRACT
Elementary students (N=160, grades 2-3 and 5-6) were
evaluated in a battery of four information-processing tasks,
including: Inspection Time, Reaction Time, Coincidence Timing, and
certified
Mental Counters (Working Memory). Half of the children were
other half were selected from
as gifted in a case study analysis; the
non-gifted programs of the same school district. For each of the two
main factors (giftedness and grade), equal numbers of participants
African-American, Latino,
were drawn from four ethnic backgrounds:
Filipino, and White. Large differences on all four
information-processing tasks appeared as a function of grade and
membership in the gifted program. The sole significant relationship
involving ethnic background was that gifted African-Americans showed
the fastest reaction times and nongifted African-Americans the
and
slowest. Overall relationships between measures of processing
intelligence quotient were modest.
(PB)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS ara the best that can be made
from the original document.
***********************************************************************
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
eproduced as
r organization
received from the person
originating it
de to improve
C Minor changes have been m
reproduction Qualify
ed in this docu
Points of view of opinions sta
resent official
ment do not necessarily re
OERI position or policy
CHAPTER 4
African-American, Latino, Filipino,
Information-Processing in Gifted Versus Nongifted
Paradigms
and White Children: Speeded Versus Nonspeeded
Nancy E. Johnson, and Tracey L. Guertin
Dennis P. Saccuzzo,
San Diego State University
Discretionary Grant Program, U.S.
Funded by Grant #R206A00569, Jacob Javits
to Dennis P. Saccuzzo, San Diego
Department of Education. Direct requests for reprints
San Diego, CA 92120-4913.
State University, 6363 Alvarado Court, Suite 103,
for providing the battery of tasks and
The authors wish to thank Gerald Larson
also express their appreciation to the San
for valuable input into this study. The authors
Education (GATE) Administrator David
Diego City Schools, to Gifted and Talented
Will Boggess, Marcia Dome, Eva
Hermanson, and to the following school psychologists:
Sy, and Daniel Williams.
Jarosz, Dimaris Michalek, Lorraine Rouse, Ben
addressed to Dennis P. Saccuzzo,
Correspondence concerning this article should be
San Diego Clinical Training Program, 6363
Joint San Diego State/University of California,
California 92120-4913 (Telephone: [phone] /
Alvarado Court, Suite 103, San Diego,
[email protected]).
FAX: [phone] / e-mail:
@ 1994
wr.,: en permission from the authors.
Do not reproduce in any form without express
k
2
Abstract
battery of four
One hundred and sixty children were evaluated in a
paradigm),
information-processing tasks: Inspection Time (backward masking
(Working Memory).
Reaction Tune, Coincidence Timing, and Mental Counters
study analysis; half were
Half of the children were certified as gifted in a case
district. Within each
selected from the nongifted program in the same school
in the 2nd-3rd grade, half in the 5th-
group (gifted vs. nongifted), half were
(giftedness and grade),
6th grade. Finally, for each of the two main factors
ethnic backgrounds:
there were an equal number of children from four
large differences
African-American, Latino, Filipino, and White. There were
tasks as a function of grade and
on all four information-processing
interaction occurred
membership in the gifted program. Only one significant
showed the
involving ethnic background, in which giftca African-Americans
Regression analysis
fastest RT's and nongifted African-Americans the slowest.
Inspection Time,
revealed that measures of speed of processing, particularly
and membership in the gifted program.
were the primary correlates of both IQ
of processing and
Overall, however, the relationship between the measures
discussed.
IQ were modest. Implications of these findings are
3
104
Filipino, and White
Nongifted African-American, Latino,
Information-Processing in Gifted vs.
Paradigms
Children: Speeded vs. Nonspeeded
children from diverse backgrounds
nontraditional method of selecting
A relatively little-used
abilities (Grinder, 1985; Sternberg,
the analysis of information-processing
for gifted programs involves
styles
subcultures in the U. S. foster different
(1986) noted, "If different
1981). As Horowitz and O'Brien
identify and
it should be possible to
of information processing, then
of thinking on different strategies
of information-processing may
population" (p. 1148). Alternately, measures
describe these for each
of selecting for giftedness.
provide an unbiased method
of three main approaches
identified information-processing as one
Wagner and Sternberg (1984)
which uses traditional
the psychometric approach,
intelligence. The other two were
to the concept of
cognitive
based on Piaget's theory of
Piagetian approach, which is
standardized tests, and the
in
researchers attempt to analyze responses
information-processing approach,
development. In the
information-processing begins
them. For example,
processes that underlie
terms of the basic component
stored or held in a short-term storage or
stimulation. This input is then
initially with input of external
The results of this analysis are
analytical processes are performed.
working memory system while
where new incoming information
systems, such as long-term memory,
subsequently transferred to other
can be made.
knowledge so that an appropriate response
one's present store of
can be compared to
problems.
able to learn and to solve
information processors are better
Theoretically, faster or more efficient
efficiency with
view that the speed or
literature have supported the
Indeed, reviews of an extensive
related to one's
processes is highly
small number of basic cognitive
which an individual can execute a
and Raven
Wechsler Intelligence Scales
of intelligence such as the
performance on psychometric tests
Vernon, 1987;
Larson & Rimland, 1984;
1982; Jensen & Reed, 1990;
Progressive Matrices Test (Jensen,
Vernon, Nador, & Kantor, 1985).
approach have been advanced.
of the.information-processing
Thus far, two main variations
skills, such
or executive
complex processes"metacomponential"
Sternberg's (1981) theory emphasizes
Sternberg's theory
selection, and solution monitoring.
recognition, process selection, strategy
as problem
inferences to new domains,
apply previously made
to make inferences and
stresses the role of the ability
storage
information from long-term memory
encoding and retrieval of
and of learning skills such as
standard and widely
approach presently lacks a
Although promising, this
(Sternberg & Davidson, 1983).
skills are
In addition, many of the
the various stages of processing.
accepted set of tasks to evaluate
disadvantaged
them less suitable in selecting
ability, which may make
highly dependent on verbal
children.
to
in the present study, attempts
approach, the one evaluated
A second information-processing
tasks through the use
performance on more complex
that theoretically underlies
tap into a basic ability
speed of information-
1982, 1987) that evaluate
tasks (Hunt, 1978; Jensen,
of elementary cognitive
encode and manipulate
faster in their ability to
this view, gifted children are
processing. According to
this speed of
knowledge. Consistent with
retrieve and analyze existing
environmental input and to
of visual and
(1986) found that several measures
Larson, and Rimland
processing theory, Saccuzzo,
skills and required
complex problem solving
which contained little or no
auditory speed of processing,
variance
instructions) shared significant common
the ability to understand
minimal language skills (only
degree of intellectual content
that did contain a high
standardized psychometric tests
with conventional
solving.
and involved complex problem
differences in
speed and individual
relationship between processing
Empirical support for a
uncertainty to which a
manipulate the level of
reaction time studies that
intelligence has come from
1990; Lunneborg, 1978;
1979; Jensen & Reed,
1979; Jensen & Munro,
subject must respond (Jensen,
time, slope of reaction
such as median reaction
Vernon, 1981). Using parameters
Smith & Stanley, 1983;
deviations of reaction time
intraindividual standard
number of bits, and
time as a function of the
1
105
4
I
41W
retarded persons and those of
reported large differences between
performance, investigators have
students (Jensen 1980; 1982).
vocational-college students and university
normal IQ, as well as between
the correlation between
of the literature, Jensen (1982) estimated
Based on his own findings and a survey
and -.4. The correlations vary
differences on IQ tests to be between -.3
reaction time and individual
(Lunneborg, 1978).
widely across samples; however
between speed of processing
have found support for a relationship
A number of investigators
and Jensen (1985), for example,
Overtoom-Corsmit, 1986). Cohn, Carlson,
and giftedness (Span &
their speed of information-
fundamentally from average children in
found that gifted children differed
compared a group of "bright-
time paradigm. Cohn et al. (1985)
processing as evaluated in a reaction
of comparable age who were
of academically gifted children
average" 7th-grade children to a group
significant group differences were
mathematics and science. Large and
taking college-level courses in
information-processing.
reaction-time measures of speed of
found on each of nine elementary
information-processing, also has
the study of speed of visual
A second line of investigation,
complex cognitive tasks. In
processing speed and performance on
supported a relationship between
briefly exposed "target" stimulus,
subject makes a discrimination for a
the typical visual paradigm, the
The
left of central fixation is longer.
lines presented to the right and
such as identifying which of two
line
non-informational mask ( e.g., a uniform
by a spatially overlapping
target stimulus is followed
masking
An extensive literature on the
the lines of the target stimulus).
that completely superimposes
impulse provided by the target is
duration that the informational
task itself reveals that it limits the
1980). Speed of processing,
system (Felsten & Wasserman,
available for processing in the central nervous
by either
Nettelbeck, & Willson, 1972), is estimated
it is usually called (Vickers,
or "Inspection Tune" as
the minimum duration needed
duration of the target and estimating
systematically varying the exposure
1976), or by keeping the stimulus
Nettlebeck, 1977; Nettelbeck & Lally,
for criterion accuracy (Lally &
mask (Saccuzzo, Kerr, Marcus, &
interval between the target and
duration constant and varying the
1983).
Brown, 1979; Saccuzzo & Marcus,
mentally retarded
statistically significant difference between
Numerous studies have reported a
in a backward masking
individuals in inspection time as evaluated
and non-retarded (average IQ)
of the stimulus, method of
spite of wide variations in the nature
paradigm. Such differences occur in
speed (Saccuzzo & Michael,
technique used to estimate visual processing
stimulus presentation, and
The general finding is a direct
clear-cut developmental differences.
1984). There are, moreover,
(Blake, 1974; Liss & Haith,
well as mental age and performance
relationship between chronological as
relationship between degrees
Finally, the evidence supports a significant
1970; Saccuzzo et al., 1979).
of the relationship remains
processing speed; however, the magnitude
of normal intelligence and visual
Nettelbeck, 1982).
controversial (Mackintosh, 1981;
on the
astonishing -.92 correlation between scores
Though an early study reported an
Inspection Tune (Nettelbeck &
Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) and
Performance Scale of the Wechsler
significant, relationship between
investigators found a less spectacular, but
Lally, 1976), most subsequent
-.45. These positive findings have
with a median correlation of about
Inspection Tune and intelligence,
sizes (usually no more than 25
methodological groundssmall sample
been criticized, however, on
inflates the correlation due to the
retarded persons, which greatly
subjects); the inclusion of mentally
size; and analyses based only on
performance relative to the sample
extremely disparate range of
Nettelbeck,
inflate correlations (Irwin, 1984;
which, again, is well-known to
extreme scoring subjects,
1982).
work in the area. Nettelbeck's
at his own and others'
Nettelbeck (1982) took a careful look
Tune.
between intelligence and Inspection
small but consistent association
analysis revealed a relatively
intelligence
between Inspection Time and
modest but significant correlations
Irwin (1984) similarly found
relationship
provided an estimate of -.50 as the
recently, Nettlebeck (1987)
test performance. More
subsequently confirmed by Kranzler
intelligence. This estimate was
between Inspection Time (IT) and
literature review and meta-analytic
meta-analysis. Based on an extensive
and Jensen (1989) in a
general measures of IQ, the
IT-
estimated that for adults, with
procedures, Kranzier and Jensen
and
effects of artifactual sources of error,
about -.54 after correction for the
intelligence correlation is
106
gifted
work is needed to determine if
these promising findings, more
-.30 prior to correction. Despite
be so
tasks, and whether they can
from nongifted children on IT
children can be distinguished
distinguished in an unbiased manner.
of information processing.
examine racial differences in speed
A few studies have attempted to
9-year-old
compared 350 black South African
Lynn and Holmshaw (1990)
In a reaction time study,
slower
While the black children had
children on 12 reaction time tests.
children with 239 white British
also tremendous IQ differences
than the white children, there were
decision times and greater variability
to the first percentile and was
children's mean Raven IQ corresponded
between the groups. The black
in the 56th percentile, with an
The white children, by contrast, were
equivalent to an IQ of about 65.
lower in IQ than is generally
the black sample in this study was
equivalent Raven IQ of 102. Because
white
generalizability to American black and
results have little, if any,
found for U.S. samples, these
populations.
(1972)
is similarly limited. Bosco
in a backward masking paradigm
A study of racial differences
school children. There were clear
first- arid sixth-grade black and white
compared the performance of
and
selected from a suburban area,
between the whites, who were
differences in socioeconomic status
background were
Since race and socioeconomic
selected from the inner city.
the blacks, who were
umesolved.
relationship between race and IT was
confounded, the issue of the
relatively
have focused on speed, with
information-processing and intelligence
To date, studics of
behavior.
also underlie intelligent
information-processing tasks that might
little attention given to other
two
subjects to respond at the instant
timing (CT), a task that requires
One such task is coincidence
(Dunham, 1977; Poulton, 1950).
objects intersect or "coincide"
Poulton,
timing (Dorfman, 1977;
traced the history of coincidence
Smith and McPhee (1987)
relates to
McPhee noted, coincidence timing
Purvis, 1981). As Smith and
1950; Thomas, Gallagher, &
object on a conveyor belt, and
and off escalators, picking up an
such everyday tasks as stepping on
In more
coincide with a gap in traffic.
of lanes on the freeway will
predicting when one's changing
to
in predicting where to aim a spear
timing also had survival value, as
primitive societies, coincidence
integrate
attend to changing conditions,
timing tasks require subjects to
hit a moving animal. Coincidence
1987).
future event (Smith & McPhee,
that information to predict a
informEtion over time, and use
determine if a correlation exists
the first published attempt to
Smith and McPhee conducted
Progressive Matrices Test, and
evaluated by the Standard Raven
between psychometric intelligence, as
56 males and females
administered a 10 minute CT task to
task. These investigators
a coincidence timing
key at the very
Subjects were required to press a
high" socioeconomic status.
of "high" to "moderate to
significant negative
stationary line. There was a
touched (coincided with) a
moment a moving target
addition, there
task and Raven scores. In
number of errors on the CT
correlation (-.294) between the
(consistency of
intrasubject standard deviation
correlation (-.359) between
was a significant negative
performance) and Raven scores.
adds a
and coincidence timing
the correlation between Raven scores
As Larson (1989) noted,
intelligence and information-
between psychometric
the well-known correlation
new dimension to
does not require
time, coincidence timing
previous tasks such as reaction
processing tasks in that, unlike
for adding to the
Thus, the task has potential
attention and estimation.
speed of processing, but rather
underlie,
related to, and perhaps
content that may be
simple tasks devoid of intellectual
range of relatively
Smith and McPhee's
Raven. Larson (1989) confirmed
problem solving such as the
tests involving complex
intelligence, as measured
task and psychometric
relationship between the CT
finding of a significant
To date, however,
of 127 male Navy recruits.
Qualifying Test (AFQT), in a group
by the Armed Forces
children, or
distinguish gifted and nongifted
coincidence timing task can
it has yet to be determined if a
differences in this skill.
whether there are ethnic
performance on
variable might underlie
Larson (1989) is whether some
A question raised by
according to Larson,
such common variable,
and coincidence timing. One
reaction time, inspection time,
problem solving. As Larson
cognitive work space for
memorythe hypothetical
may be working
cognitive tasks and
bridge between simple
provides a theoretical
(1989) noted, working memory
107
6
and/or fidelity" (p. 366). In the
such as "representational agility
psychometric tests, based on concepts
hypothesis through
of Larson's theoretical bridge
attempted to provide a direct test
present study, we
mental counters (Larson, 1986).
task of working memory called
the use of a microcomputerized
Method
Subjects:
school psychologist were compared to a
been certified as gifted by a
Eighty children who had
and nongifted)
of these two samples (gifted
nongifted children. For each
matched sample of eighty
Each of the four
5th- to 6th-grade children.
3rd-grade children and forty
there were forty 2nd- to
10 White
Filipino, 10 Latino/Hispanic, and
had 10 African-American, 10
subgroups of forty children
and
gifted children on the basis of age, race,
children were matched to the
children. The nongifted
school district.
Procedure:
school psychologist in a
individually for each child by a
Giftedness was determined
teachers,
recommendations by parents or
This analysis considered
comprehensive case study analysis.
of risk factors including
tests scores, and the presence
checklist, achievement, standardized
a behavior
environments.
second language, and negative
cultural differences, English as a
economic disadvantage,
Choice
follows: Inspection Time (IT),
battery of microcomputerized tests as
Each child was given a
presented
Mental Counters (MC). These tests were
Coincidence Timing (CO, and
Reaction Time (CRT),
keyboard. The tests
white monitor and standard
microcomputer with a black and
on an IBM PC/XT
hour.
lasted approximately one
in one session, which
in counterbalanced order
were administered
and their
second session. All subjects,
standard Raven in a separate,
Subjects were administered a
school
their participation. Nevertheless, one
written informed consent for
parents, provided voluntary
receive the
children (11 gifted) did not
administration of the Raven; 18
district refused to allow the
described below.
information-processing battery are
for each task in the
Raven. The specific parameters
the
non-adaptive procedure based on
The inspection time (IT) task was a
Inspection Time (IT).
described in detail by
and Larson (1987) and
Rim land (1984) and Saccuzzo
methods of Larson and
unequal length (17.5
of two horizontal lines of
A target stimulus consisting
Larson and Saccuzzo (1989).
Tne two lines appeared
of the computer monitor.
briefly presented in the center
mm and 14.3 mm) was
left on a random basis.
the longer appearing right or
left of central fixation, with
to the right and
of a single
visual noise mask, consisting
of the target, a backward
Immediately following termination
known
presented. The mask is
superimposed spatially on the target, was
horizontal line that completely
(Felsten
system by the target
to the central nervous
of the sensory signal delivered
to limit the duration
stimulus durations:
of five completely randomized
Targets were presented at one
& Wasserman, 1980).
refresh cycles on the video
corresponded to 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9
150.3 msec, which
16.7, 33.4, 66.8, 102.2, and
subject's task was to
for a total of 50 trials. The
trials per stimulus duration,
monitor. There were 10
is longer, by pressing
of the two lines of the target
discrimination, indicating which
make a forced-choice
instructions, examples,
The task began with a set of
the microcomputer keyboard.
one of two keys on
visual feedback
Subjects were given computer-generated
to the test proper.
and pracfice to criterion prior
on their performance.
time task,
for a 1,3, and 5 choice reaction
Paradigm). A Hick paradigm
Choice Reaction Time (Hick
used to evaluate choice
Larson and Saccuzzo (1989), was
Saccuzzo et al. (1986) and
as described by
the bottom of the
of lights was presented at
A horizontal arrangement
reaction time performance.
order of presentation
5-choice conditions, with
presented with 1-,3-, and
monitor. All subjects were
Subjects responded
used as stimulus lights.
on the monitor were
completely randomized. Open squares
forefinger rested lightly on
illuminated. The subject's
bar as soon as a square was
by pressing the space
has shown
involved. Previous research
essentially no movement time
the space bar, so that there was
reaction time tasks involving
effective as more traditional
reaction time task is as
due
that this "no movement"
minimizing errors that occur
has the advantage of
Saccuzzo, Larson, 1987), and
movement (Kostas,
subject
In this procedure, the
movement time paradigm.
pressing two keys in the
to the necessity of
After a random period of
five line drawn squares.
which there are one, three, or
views the monitor on
7
108
is defined as the number
the squares is illuminated. Reaction time
time from 1.5 to 2.5 seconds, one of
is illuminated)
of the stimulus (i.e., where one of the stimulus squares
of milliseconds between the onset
the space bar.
and the instant the subject presses
used by Larson (1989),
liming task was identical to that
Coincidence Timing. The Coincidence
each of three conditions, the
by Smith and McPhee (1987). For
based on the description provided
moment that a horizontally
bar on the computer keyboard at the exact
subject's task was to press the space
Condition 1 consisted of a dot that
line in the middle of the monitor.
moving dot crossed a vertical
second, with random delays in the
line at the speed of 0.10 meters per
moved in a straight horizontal
speed of 0.15 meters per second. In
identical to Condition 1 but at a
starting time. Condition 2 was
delay and speed of 0.10 meters
random (jagged), with a random
Condition 3, the path of the dot was
0.13
dot from orgin to crossing the line was
distance traversed by the moving
per second. The total
meters.
trial consisted of a cycle in
30 trials at each condition. Each
As in Larson (1989), there were
the dot crossed the centerline
the screen, then right to left so that
which the dot moved left to right across
related to the type of skills that
such as coincidence timing may be
twice. Finally, since skill in tasks
1983), each of the 160 children
such as Nintendo (Salthouse & Prill,
children develop playing video games
they spend playing video games
the number of hours per week that
in the study were asked to estimate
tasks.
implementation of the information-processing
in a self-report procedure prior to
subjects are asked to
Counters(MC) task (Larson, 1986),
Mental Counters (MC). In the Mental
rapidly and in random order. The
independent "counters" that change
keep track of the values of three
values that change rapidly.
hold, revise, and store three counter
task requires subjects to simultaneously
(three side-by-side horizontal
represented as dashes on the video monitor
The counters themselves are
(0.25
(0,0,0). When a small target
The initial counter values are zero
dashes in the center of the screen).
counter must be adjusted
of the three dashes, the corresponding
inch, hollow box) appears above one
corresponding counter
below one of the three dashes, the
by adding one. When the target appears
number of targets and the rate of
The test items vary both in the
must be adjusted by subtracting one.
presentation (0.633 seconds and
there were two different rates of
presentation. In the present study
Order of
changed 8 times.
that the values of the initial counters
1.42 seconds), and 8 targets, such
subjects were given instructions,
counterbalanced. Prior to the test proper,
presentation of speeds was
The maximum and minimum
(three consecutive correct responses).
examples, and practice to criterion
subject's task was to select, from among
+3 and -3, respectively. The
counter values varied between
the
Selection was made by pressing
final values for the three counters.
four choices, the correct list of
the test proper.
during practice, and not during
keyboard. Feedback was given only
proper key on the
Results
Video Games.
such as Nintendo were
week spent playing video games
Data for self-reported hours per
ANOVA. The only significant
nongifted) X 4(Ethnic Background)
evaluated in a 2(GATE: gifted vs
that the gifted
.042. This result revealed
GATE, F(1,152) = 4.208, p <
finding was a maM effect for
than the nongifted
week (about half) playing video games
children spent significantly less time per
did
if prior practice at such tasks
6.04 hours, respectively. Thus,
children, with means of 3.82 hours vs
much
nongifted children, since they spent
have been far in favor of the
make a difference, it would
of hours
ethnic differences in the number
video games. Notably, there were no
more time playing
spent playing these games.
109
8
Raven.
111
Table 1 shows the Raven scores for gifted vs nongifted children as a function of ethnic
background. The table shows the average Raven Z scores based on the U.S. smoothed norms provided
by Raven et al (1986). These data were subjected to a 2(GATE) X 2(Grade) X 4(Ethnic Background)
ANOVA. As might be expected, there was a significant main effect, F(1,135) = 42.69, p < .001, for Gifted
(M = 1.11, SD = .92) vs Nongifted(M = .02, SD = 1.0) children. The only other significant finding was a
GATE X Ethnic Background interaction, F(3,135) = 3.58, p < .05. Newman-Keuls post hoc multiple
comparison tests of this difference revealed the gifted White, African-American, and Filipino children
did not differ significantly among themselves and all three of these groups were significantly higher
than the gifted Latino children and each of the four nongifted groups, none of whom differed significantly
among themselves. It should be noted, however, that of the 11 gifted children who did not receive
111
Raven, 6 were in the Latino group. The absence of these children may have artificially lowered the
overall mean for the Latino children.
Table 1.
Raven Z-Scores as a Function of Ethnic Background for Gifted versus Nongifted Children
111
Filipino
African-American
Latino/Hispanic
White
Gifted Nongifted
Nongifted
Gifted
Gifted Nongifted
Gifted Nongifted
111
0.16
1.09
-0.38
1.34
0.36
M
0.01
1.36
0.51
0.92
0.58 0.95
0.79
1.31
0.78
0.81
1.17
SD
For each of the four information-processsing variables, all F values, significance levels, means,
and standard deviations are presented in Table 2 to conserve space. Whereas Grade reflects differences
between 5th and 6th versus 2nd and 3rd graders, GATE reflects differences between Gifted versus
111
Nongifted children, and Condition reflects the condition under study, such as Stimulus Duration, Choices,
and Fast vs. Slow.
IP
9
110
Table 2
Summary of significant findings
SD
Level
df
A4
Significant Effects
Inspection Time
13.19
66.17
5th - 6th Grade
1/140
36.73***
Main Effect: Grade
2nd 3rd Grade
14.68
57.50
14.62
63.78
Gifted
1/140
7.84**
Main Effect: GATE
15.01
59.83
Nongifted
10.7
52
Duration 1
4/560
80.12***
Main Effect:
13.4
57
Duration 2
Stimulus Duration
15.7
57
Duration 3
17.2
68
Duration 4
18.3
74
Duration 5
4/560
8.73***
Grade X Inspection Time
4/560
3.76**
GATE X Inspection Time
Reaction Time (msec)
5th 6th Grade
90.55
383
1/135
56.83***
Main Effect: Grade
133.47
564
2nd - 3rd Grade
113.75
422
Gifted
1/135
6.21*
Main Effect: GATE
139.70
467
Nongifted
117.71
384
One Choice
2/278
141.99***
Main Effect: Choices
127.01
454
Three Choices
479
142.0U
Five Choices
2/278
4.17*
Grade X Choices
2/278
5.08**
GATE X Choices
323*
3/139
GATE X Ethnicity
Coincidence Timing (Errors)
7.51
5th - 6th Grade
18.34
1/140
36.27***
Main Effect: Grade
17.87
29.16
2nd - 3rd Grade
8.89
19.80
Gifted
1 /140
19.95***
Main Effect: GATE
18.01
27.73
Nongifted
11.39
16.95
Slow, NonVariable
2/280
94.76***
Main Effect: Condition
14.69
2.5.18
Fast, NonVariable
18.21
29.32
Random
2/280
3.75*
Grade X Condition
2/280
3.58*
GATE X Condition
Mental Counters
4.11
10.84
5th - 6th Grade
1/112
48.00***
Main Effect: Grade
3.76
6.46
2nd - 3rd Grade
4.34
9.68
Gifted
1/112
7.08**
Main Effect: GATE
4.59
8.34
Nongifted
5.07
10.17
66.00***
Slow
1/112
Main Effect: Condition
3.95
7.87
Fast
8.99**
1/112
Grade X Condition
1/112
6.41**
GATE X Condition
*p< .05
** p < .01
p .001
1 0