A Meta-Analytic Evaluation: Investigating Evidence for the Validity of the Cognitive Abilities Test

IF 3 3区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-10-21 DOI:10.1177/00169862241285593

Zafer Ozen, Nielsen Pereira, Tugce Karatas, Hernán Castillo-Hermosilla, Yukiko Maeda

{"title":"A Meta-Analytic Evaluation: Investigating Evidence for the Validity of the Cognitive Abilities Test","authors":"Zafer Ozen, Nielsen Pereira, Tugce Karatas, Hernán Castillo-Hermosilla, Yukiko Maeda","doi":"10.1177/00169862241285593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) is one of the most frequently used gifted identification tools. In this meta-analytic study, we investigated empirical evidence of the validity of CogAT, in relation to different types of instruments. After reviewing 1,480 studies, a total of 24 with 33 effect sizes were included in the meta-analysis. According to our findings, the average effect size of r was found to be .63 with a 95% confidence interval [.57, .69]. Based on the heterogeneity test, significant variation due to the systematic between-study differences exists among the included correlations. Egger’s test for funnel plot asymmetry also indicates that no obvious publication bias exists in our study pool, which indicates there might not be a serious threat to alter the obtained results with publication bias. The moderator analysis revealed Lohman’s authorship and publication type influenced the effect size differences among studies. CogAT’s overall correlation with other identification tools (.63) might suggest using at least one more identification tool besides CogAT.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gifted Child Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862241285593","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) is one of the most frequently used gifted identification tools. In this meta-analytic study, we investigated empirical evidence of the validity of CogAT, in relation to different types of instruments. After reviewing 1,480 studies, a total of 24 with 33 effect sizes were included in the meta-analysis. According to our findings, the average effect size of r was found to be .63 with a 95% confidence interval [.57, .69]. Based on the heterogeneity test, significant variation due to the systematic between-study differences exists among the included correlations. Egger’s test for funnel plot asymmetry also indicates that no obvious publication bias exists in our study pool, which indicates there might not be a serious threat to alter the obtained results with publication bias. The moderator analysis revealed Lohman’s authorship and publication type influenced the effect size differences among studies. CogAT’s overall correlation with other identification tools (.63) might suggest using at least one more identification tool besides CogAT.

查看原文本刊更多论文

元分析评估：调查认知能力测试有效性的证据

认知能力测验（CogAT）是最常用的资优生识别工具之一。在这项元分析研究中，我们结合不同类型的工具，对认知能力测验的有效性进行了实证调查。在对 1 480 项研究进行审查后，共有 24 项研究的 33 个效应大小被纳入元分析。根据我们的研究结果，r 的平均效应大小为 0.63，95% 置信区间为[0.57, 0.69]。根据异质性检验，由于研究间的系统性差异，所纳入的相关性之间存在显著差异。Egger的漏斗图不对称检验也表明，我们的研究库中不存在明显的发表偏倚，这表明发表偏倚可能不会严重威胁到所获得的结果。主持人分析显示，Lohman 的作者身份和发表类型影响了不同研究之间的效应大小差异。CogAT 与其他识别工具的总体相关性（0.63）可能表明，除了 CogAT 之外，至少还需要使用一种识别工具。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Gifted Child Quarterly Multiple-

CiteScore

6.30

自引率

29.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ) is the official journal of the National Association for Gifted Children. As a leading journal in the field, GCQ publishes original scholarly reviews of the literature and quantitative or qualitative research studies. GCQ welcomes manuscripts offering new or creative insights about giftedness and talent development in the context of the school, the home, and the wider society. Manuscripts that explore policy and policy implications are also welcome. Additionally, GCQ reviews selected books relevant to the field, with an emphasis on scholarly texts or text with policy implications, and publishes reviews, essay reviews, and critiques.