The Role of Nonverbal Ability Tests in Identifying Academically Gifted Students: An Aptitude Perspective

The fi rst goal of this article is to discuss the role of n o nverbal ability te sts in the identification of acad e m i c a l ly gifted ch i l d ren. I note that most nonve r b a l te sts measure ve r b a l ly mediated cognitive pro c e s s e s , that th ey are neither “culture free” nor “culture fa i r,” and that we have known these facts for a ve ry long time. I show that selecting students for gifted and ta le n ted pro grams on the basis of such te sts wo u l d exclude the maj o rity of the most academically a c c o mplished students in all ethnic groups. The second goal is to propose a bet ter method for identifying g i fted students. I argue that the critical issue is re a d iness for a particular type of educational opport u n i t y. The cognitive aspects of readiness are evidenced fi rst in students’ levels of knowl e d ge and skill in part i c u l a r domains and secondari ly in their abilities to reason in the symbol systems used to communicate new k n owl e d ge in these domains. This applies to both m i n o rity and maj o rity students. There fo re, the most a c a d e m i c a l ly ta l e n ted minority students are th o s e who show the st ro n ge st current ach i evement in particular domains and the best ability to reason in th e symbol systems re qu i red for the acquisition of new k n owl e d ge in those domains. I also argue th a t , a l though current accomplishment can be measure d on a common scale, judgments about potential must a l ways be made re l a t i ve to circ u m sta n c e s . P U T T I N G T H E R E S E A R C H T O U S E D i s c ove ring which ch a ra c te ri stics to measure on selection te sts re qu i res a careful consideration of th e k n owl e d ge, skills, mot i vation, and other pers o n a l a t t ri b u tes that are re qu i red for success in part i c u l a r academic pro grams. At the ve ry least, pro grams fo r the gifted need to distinguish bet ween the academic needs of students who curre n t ly show academic excellence and the needs of those who show lesser a c c o mplishments, but have potential for deve l o p i n g academic excellence. The most imp o rtant apt i t u d e s for future academic accomplishment in a domain are c u rrent ach i evement in that domain and the ability to reason in the symbol systems in which new knowle d ge is communicated. For both minority and nonm i n o rity students, verbal and qu a n t i ta t i ve re a s o n i n g abilities are much bet ter pre d i c to rs of academic success than nonverbal, fi g u ral reasoning abilities. In fact, some students with high nonverbal abilities are a c t u a l ly l e s s l i ke ly than other students to develop academic excellence. Fu rth e r, many of the most acad e m i c a l ly capable Black students score poorly on s u ch te sts. Although accomplishments can be est im a ted using common norms, potential must always be judged re l a t i ve to circ u m stances. It is re c o m m e n ded, th e re fo re, that pro grams use common apt i t u d e m e a s u res, but uncommon cuto ff scores (e.g., ra n k w i thin group) when identifying those minority st udents most like ly to pro fit from inte n s i ve inst ru c t i o n . Te sts of nonverbal, fi g u ral reasoning abilities are a helpful adjunct for both minority and nonminori t y admissions—but evidence shows that th ey should be m e a s u res of last re s o rt, not fi rst re s o rt. When used alone, such te sts increase selection bias while appearing to reduce it. N O N V E R B A L A B I L I T Y T E S T S A N D I D E N T I F Y I N G G I F T E D G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R L Y • S P R I N G 2 0 0 5 • V O L 4 9 N O 2 1 1 1 N O N V E R B A L A B I L I T Y T E S T S A N D I D E N T I F Y I N G G I F T E D Because figural tests are particularly amenable to such inquiry, much of our work centered on these tasks (Snow & Lohman, 1984, 1989). Over the years, I conducted many studies on spatial abilities, figural reasoning abilities, and the nature of individual differences in thinking, problem solving, and their implications for instruction. In the early 1990s, I was asked if I would assume responsibility for the sixth edition of the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT; Lohman & Hagen, 2001a). As one who has spent 30 years studying figural reasoning and as the coauthor of an ability test that has an excellent nonverbal battery, one might expect that I would be pleased with the recent emphasis on using figural reasoning tests to identify students for inclusion in programs for the gifted and talented. On the contrary, I am dismayed by the claims that have been made for such tests. I see well-intentioned educators being misled about what these tests measure and, more importantly, children being hurt by selection policies that use nonverbal reasoning tests as the criteria of f irst resort—rather than of last resort—for admission to programs for the academically gifted and talented. The goals for using figural reasoning tests when selecting students for special programs for the gifted and talented are laudable: Measure abilities in a way that is fair to all students; increase the diversity of students who are included in programs for the gifted and talented; actively assist those who have not had the advantages of wealth or an immersion from birth in the English language. I endorse these goals. I also believe that figural reasoning tests can provide information that assists in achieving them. Such tests have a place at the selection table. But, I disagree with those who claim that they should be at the head of the table or, worse yet, occupy the only chair at the table. Contributors to this journal have disagreed on the role of nonverbal ability tests in the identification of academically gifted students. For example, Naglieri and Fo rd (2003) advo c a ted the use of Na gl i e ri’s (19 97 ) group-administered figural reasoning test for identifying academically gifted students. However, in a previous article (Lohman, 2005), I showed that the score distributions for different ethnic groups used in their study had been substantially altered from those reported in previous analyses of the same data. The claims about the utility of the test for identifying gifted minority students were therefore not supported. Mills and Tissot (1995) also counseled caution. They noted that large differences in the mean scores of ethnic groups and low correlations between scores on the Advanced Progressive Matrices Test (APM; Raven, Court, & Raven, 1983) and measures of achievement make it a poor primary selection tool for special programs that involve advanced coursework. As they put it: “Identification instruments should match the programs for which students are being identified” (p. 216). In their view, a more appropriate use of the APM may be as a screening test that, along with other assessments, could be used to identify academic potential in students who are not yet ready for advanced-level academic programs. Such students could be provided educational opportunities that aim to develop academic skills needed to participate in advanced-level coursework. I concur with their conclusions, although I also would argue that measures of quantitative and verbal reasoning should generally be considered before the nonverbal-reasoning test in the identification process. Like Richert (2003), I also argue that rank within group on the most relevant aptitudes should guide efforts to identify academically promising minority students who are not yet ready for advanced-level academic programs.