The Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) is said to be a culturally neutral measure of ability that assesses both majority and minority students equally. Although research has examined the effects of ethnicity and gender on NNAT performance, little published research has examined the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and NNAT performance. Correlations and multiple regression were used to examine the relationships between ethnicity, SES, and NNAT performance in a large kindergarten sample. The results suggest a significant relationship between ethnicity, SES, and NNAT performance. Even after adjusting for ethnic differences, children from low-SES families were half as likely as other children to be identified.
Putting the Research to Use
Does the NNAT really identify students with low-SES backgrounds at the same rate as students from average to high SES backgrounds? Although many believe using a nonverbal test levels the field for all students, the research we present does not support this belief. In this sample, students from average to high SES families were twice as likely to be identified than those from low-SES families. Since nonverbal tests are one of the most used methods of screening for G/T in our schools, if districts wish to continue to use the NNAT, it should not be as a solo measure of ability, but rather as part of a multiple measure process. In addition, districts using the NNAT should calculate the differential of any particular test administration on the basis of gender, ethnicity, SES or other variables to determine if any adjustments need to be made to ensure that elusive level playing field.
American Psychological Association, Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. (2007). Report of the APA Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
American Psychological Association. (2009). Office on Socioeconomic Status (SES). Retrieved January 30, 2009, from http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/homepage.html
3.
Arlitt, A.H. ( 1921). On the need for caution in establishing race norms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 179-183.
4.
Assouline, S.G. ( 1997). Assessment of gifted children. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 89-108). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
Barron, K.M. ( 2007). The relationship between NCLB variables and selected variables with high school subject area test scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University.
6.
Bollen, K., Glanville, J.A., & Stecklov, G. ( 2001). Socioeconomic status and class in studies of fertility and health in developing countries. Annual Review of Sociology , 27, 153-185.
Buckhalt, J.A., El-Sheikh, M., & Keller, P. ( 2007). Children’s sleep and cognitive functioning: Race and socioeconomic status as moderators of effects. Child Development , 78, 213-231.
9.
Davis, G.A., & Rimm, S.B. ( 2003). Education of the gifted and talented (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
10.
Drake, K.S. ( 2006, June). Gifted services identification report. Saint Paul, MN: Saint Paul Public Schools, Department of Research, Evaluation and Assessment, Office of Research and Development .
11.
Frasier, M.M., Martin, D., Garcia, J., Finley, V.S., Frank, E., Krisel, S., et al. (1995). A new window for looking at gifted children . Athens, GA: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
12.
Frederickson, N., & Petrides, K.V. (2008). Ethnic, gender, and socio-economic group differences in academic performance and secondary school selection: A longitudinal analysis. Learning and Individual Differences , 18, 144-151.
13.
Ford, D.Y. ( 1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4-14.
14.
Ford, D.Y. ( 2008). Intelligence testing and cultural diversity: The need for alternative instruments, policies, and procedures. In J. L. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 107-128). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
15.
George, C.E. ( 2001). The Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: Assessment of cross-cultural validity, reliability, and differential item functioning. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 6018.
16.
Gordon, R.A. ( 1968). Issues in multiple regression. American Journal of Sociology, 73, 592-616.
17.
Harcourt Educational Measurement. (1997). Stanford achievement test series (9th ed.). Technical data report. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Educational Measurement.
18.
Helms, J.E. ( 2002). A remedy for Black-White test score disparity. American Psychologist, 57, 303-305.
19.
Hochschild, J.L. ( 2003). Social class in the public schools. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 821-840.
20.
Holm, S. ( 1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure . Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65-70.
21.
Jensen, A.R. ( 1973). Educability and group differences. New York: Harper & Row.
22.
Kitano, M.K. ( 1990). A developmental model for identifying and serving young gifted children. Early Child Development and Care, 63, 19-31.
23.
Kitano, M.K., & DiJiosia, M. ( 2002). Are Asian and Pacific Americans overrepresented in programs for the gifted? Roeper Review, 24, 76-80.
24.
Lachman, M.E., & Weaver, S.L. ( 1998).The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 763-773.
25.
Laosa, L.M. ( 1996). Intelligence testing and social policy. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 155-173.
26.
Lewis, J.D. ( 2001). Language isn’t needed: Nonverbal assessments and gifted learners. Proceedings of the Growing Partnership for Rural Special Education Conference. San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453026)
27.
Lohman, D.F. ( 2005a). Review of Naglieri and Ford (2003): Does the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test identify equal proportions of high-scoring White, Black, and Hispanic students?Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 19-28.
28.
Lohman, D.F. ( 2005b). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly , 49, 111-138.
29.
Lohman, D.F. ( 2008). Comparing CogAT, NNAT, and the Raven. Cognitively Speaking, 6, 1-8.
30.
Lohman, D.F., & Hagen, E. ( 2001). Cognitive abilities test (Form 6). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
31.
Lohman, D.F., Korb, K.A., & Lakin, J.M. ( 2008). Identifying academically gifted English-language learners using nonverbal tests: A comparison of the Raven, NNAT, and CogAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 275-296.
32.
Lohman, D.F., & Lakin, J.M. ( 2007). Nonverbal test scores as one component of an identification system: Integrating ability, achievement, and teacher ratings. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessments for identifying gifted and talented students (pp. 41-66). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
33.
McKenzie, J.A. ( 1986). The influence of identification practices, race and SES on the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly , 30, 93-95.
34.
Menard, S. ( 1995). Applied logistic regression analysis: Sage university series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
Mills, C.J., Ablard, K.E., & Brody, E. ( 1993). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Its usefulness for identifying gifted/talented students. Roeper Review, 15, 183-187.
36.
Naglieri, J.A., Booth, A.L., & Winsler, A. ( 2004). Comparison of Hispanic children with and without limited English proficiency on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. Psychological Assessment, 16, 81-84.
37.
Naglieri, J.A., & Ford, D.Y. ( 2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155-160.
38.
Naglieri, J.A., & Ronning, M.E. ( 2000). Comparison of White, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian children on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. Psychological Assessment, 12, 328-334.
39.
Naglieri, J.A. ( 1997a). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
40.
Naglieri, J.A. ( 1997b). NNAT multilevel technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
41.
Naglieri, J.A. ( 2008). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: Multilevel form technical report. San Antonio, TX: Pearson .
42.
National Association for Gifted Children. ( 2008). NAGC position statement: The role of assessments in the identification of gifted students. Washington, DC: Author.
43.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M.H. ( 1989). Applied linear regression models. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
44.
Pearson Education (n.d.). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test ®-Individual administration. Retrieved January 4, 2009, from http://pearsonassess.com/hai/ProductLongDesc.aspx?Catalog=TPCUSCatalog&ISBN=015-8706-005&Category=06AchieveAbility
45.
Plank, S.B., & Jordan, W.J. ( 1997). Reducing talent loss: The impact of information, guidance, and actions on postsecondary enrollment (Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk Rep. No. 9). Baltimore: CRESPAR.
46.
Raven, J.C. ( 1941). Standardisation of progressive matrices, 1938. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 19, 137-150.
47.
Raven, J. ( 1989). The Raven Progressive Matrices: A review of national norming studies and ethnic and socioeconomic variation within the United States . Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 1-16.
48.
Renzulli, J. S. (Ed.). (2004a). Identification of students for gifted and talented programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
49.
Renzulli, J.S. ( 2004b). Introduction to identification of students for gifted and talented programs. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.), Identification of students for gifted and talented programs (pp. xxiiixxxiv). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
50.
Ripple, C.H., & Luthar, S.S. ( 2000). Academic risk among inner-city adolescents: The role of personal attributes. Journal of School Psychology, 38, 277-298.
51.
Rojahn, J., & Naglieri, J.A. (2006). Developmental gender differences on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test in a nationally normed sample of 5-17-year-olds . Intelligence, 34, 253-260.
52.
Sattler, J. ( 2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.) . Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
53.
Shaunessy, E., Karnes, F.A., & Cobb, Y. ( 2004). Assessing potentially gifted students from lower socioeconomic status with nonverbal measures of intelligence. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 98, 1129-1138.
54.
Sirin, S.R. ( 2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75, 417-453.
55.
St. Jean, D. ( 1996). Valuing, identifying, cultivating, and rewarding talents of students from special populations. Storrs, CT: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
56.
Stormont, M., Stebbins, M.S., & Holliday, G. ( 2001). Characteristics and educational needs of underrepresented gifted adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 413-423.
57.
Sutton, A., & Soderstrom, I. (1999). Predicting elementary and secondary school achievement with school-related and demographic factors. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 330-338.
58.
Suzuki, L.A., & Valencia, R.R. (1997). Race-ethnicity and measured intelligence: Educational implications. American Psychologist , 52, 1103-1114.
59.
Taylor, O.L., & Lee, D.L. ( 1995). Standardized tests and African-American children: Communication and language issues. In A. G. Hilliard (Ed.), Testing African-American students (2nd ed., pp. 81-98). Chicago, IL: Third World Press.
60.
Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). Converting a TLI score to a percentile rank and/or a NCE. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/reporting/freq/converttli.pdf
61.
Tyler-Wood, T.L., & Carri, L. ( 1991). Identification of gifted children: The agreement of various measures of cognitive ability. Roeper Review, 14, 63-64.
62.
U.S. Department of Education. (1991). National Educational Longitudinal Study 88. Final report: Gifted and talented education programs for eighth-grade public school students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation.
63.
Upson, L.M. ( 2004). Effects of an increasingly precise socioeconomic match on mean score differences in nonverbal intelligence test scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
