Author :
Abstract
This article reports a study intended to develop a scale that measures attitudes of preschool through university in-service educators toward gifted education. After a thorough review of the literature on the topic, the first version of the scale was developed with 24 Likert-type items intended to measure four dimensions of the construct (six items for each). The scale was given to 421 preschool through university in-service educators (teachers, school counselors, school administrators, etc.) working at various schools or educational institutions in Istanbul, Turkey during the 2011-2012 school year. After a listwise deletion of missing data, the analyses were done on 360 cases. Based on results from exploratory factor analysis on one half of the data, nine items were eliminated and 15 retained. The revised scale could still measure all four dimensions with at least three items each. The factor structure of the revised version of the scale could be cross-validated on the second half of the data through confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency reliability coefficients of the whole revised scale and the subscales were acceptable. The resulting scale is a valid and reliable instrument with the potential to be adapted to various educational systems in the world.
Keywords
Abstract
This article reports a study intended to develop a scale that measures attitudes of preschool through university in-service educators toward gifted education. After a thorough review of the literature on the topic, the first version of the scale was developed with 24 Likert-type items intended to measure four dimensions of the construct (six items for each). The scale was given to 421 preschool through university in-service educators (teachers, school counselors, school administrators, etc.) working at various schools or educational institutions in Istanbul, Turkey during the 2011-2012 school year. After a listwise deletion of missing data, the analyses were done on 360 cases. Based on results from exploratory factor analysis on one half of the data, nine items were eliminated and 15 retained. The revised scale could still measure all four dimensions with at least three items each. The factor structure of the revised version of the scale could be cross-validated on the second half of the data through confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency reliability coefficients of the whole revised scale and the subscales were acceptable. The resulting scale is a valid and reliable instrument with the potential to be adapted to various educational systems in the world.
Keywords
- Begin, J., & Gagne, F. (1994). Predictors of attitudes toward gifted education: A review of the literature and a blueprint for future research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17(2), 161-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016235329401700206
- Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 78-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004
- Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
- Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(7). Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf
- Cramond, B., & Martin, C.E. (1987). Inservice and preservice teachers' attitudes toward the academically brilliant. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31(1), 15-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001698628703100103
- DeVellis, R.F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
- Fuller, T.D., Edwards, J.N., Vorakitphokatorn, S., & Sermsri, S. (1993). Using focus groups to adapt survey instruments to new populations: Experience from a developing country. In D.L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 89-104). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483349008.n6
- Gagne, F. (1983). Perceptions of programs for gifted children: Agreement on principles, but disagreement over modalities. B. C. Journal of Special Education, 7, 113-127.
- Gagne, F., & Nadeau, L. (1985). Dimensions of attitudes towards giftedness. In A. H. Roldan (Ed.), Gifted and talented children, youth, and adults: Their social perspective and culture (pp. 148-170). Monroe, NJ: Trillium.
- Gagne, F., & Nadeau, L. (1991). Opinions about the gifted and their education. Unpublished instrument.
- Geake, J.G., & Gross, M.U.M. (2008). Teachers' negative affect toward academically gifted students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 217-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986208319704
- Henson, R.K., & Roberts, J.K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416.
- Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
- Jacobs, J.C. (1972). Teacher attitude toward gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly,16(1), 23-26.
- Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (2007). LISREL 8.80 [Computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
- Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
- McCoach, D.B., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers' attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 246-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302719
- Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- O’Brien, K. (1993). Improving survey questionnaires through focus groups. In D.L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 105-117). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483349008.n7
- SPSS Inc. (2010). SPSS 19.0 [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: Author.
- Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Sun, J. (2005). Assessing goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37, 240-256.
- Tallent-Runnels, M.K., Tirri, K.A., & Adams, A.M. (2000). A cross-cultural study of teachers' attitudes toward gifted children and programs for gifted children. Gifted and Talented International, 15(2), 103-115.
- Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10694-000
- Tirri, K.A., Tallent-Runnels, M.K., Adams, A.M., Yuen, M., & Lau, P.S.Y. (2002). Cross-cultural predictors of teachers' attitudes toward gifted education: Finland, Hong Kong, and the United States. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 26(2), 112-131.
- Van Prooijen, J., & Van Der Kloot, W. A. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 777-792.
- Vogt, D.S., King, D.W., & King, L.A. (2004). Focus groups in psychological assessment: Enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychological Assessment, 16, 231-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.231
- Wegener, D.T., & Fabrigar, L.R. (2000). Analysis and design for nonexperimental data: Addressing causal and noncausal hypotheses. In H.T. Reis & C.M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 412-450). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Wolff, B., Knodel, J., & Sittitrai, W. (1993). Focus groups and surveys as complementary research methods: A case example. In D.L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 118-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483349008.n8