Öz

Bu araştırmada Anadolu-Sak Zekâ Ölçeği’nin (ASİS) Üstün Yetenekliler Eğitim Programları (ÜYEP) tanılaması kapsamındaki ölçüt geçerliği incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını ÜYEP tanılama sınavında özel yetenek tanısı almış 30 öğrenci ve özel yetenek tanısı almayan 123 öğrenci (toplam 153) oluşturmaktadır. Öğrencilerin zekâ düzeyleri ASİS kullanılarak, yetenek ve yaratıcılık puanları ise Matematiksel Yetenek Testi (MYT) ve Bilimsel Üretkenlik Testinden (BÜT) elde edilmiştir. Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgulara göre özel yetenek tanısı alan grubun ASİS puanlarının, özel yetenek tanısı almayan gruba göre anlamlı şekilde daha yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. ÜYEP tanılama puanına göre üst %27 orta %46 ve alt %27’lik dilimlerde yer alan grupların zekâ puanı ortalamaları arasında anlamlı farklar bulunmuştur [(F(2.128) = 49.361, p< .001; Ƞ2 = 0.435]. ASİS’in tahmin geçerliğini incelemek amacıyla yapılan ikili lojistik regresyon analizi sonucunda, ASİS ÜYEP tanılamasında özel yetenek tanısı alan ve almayan katılımcıların %84,3’ünü doğru bir şekilde sınıflamıştır. ASİS’in zamandaş geçerliği analizlerinde ise ÜYEP tanılama puanı, MYT ve BÜT puanları ile genel zekâ arasında anlamlı ilişkiler bulunmuştur (rÜYEP= .77; rMYT= .72; rBÜT= .55; p<.001). Elde edilen bulgulara göre ASİS’in ölçüt geçerliğinin özel yetenek tanılaması bağlamında tatmin edici düzeyde olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Anadolu Sak Zekâ Ölçeği
• ASIS
• bilimsel yaratıcılık
• matematiksel yetenek
• ölçüt geçerliği

An Investigation of the Criterion Validity of Anadolu Sak Intelligence Scale (ASIS): The Case of EPTS

Abstract

In this study, the criterion validity of the Anadolu-Sak Intelligence Scale (ASIS) was examined within the scope of the identification system of Education Programs for Talented Students (EPTS). The research participant consisted of 153 students. 30 of them were mathematically and scientifically gifted and 123 were non-gifted by the EPTS identification system. Intelligence scores were obtained by ASIS and talent and creativity scores were obtained by Math Ability Test (MAT) and Creative Scientific Ability Test (CSAT). Findings of the study showed that gifted group’s ASIS scores were significantly higher than the non-gifted group’s scores. Participants were divided into three groups (upper 27% middle 46% lower 27%) according EPTS scores and significant differences were found between the average intelligence scores of these three groups [(F(2.128) = 49.361, p< .001; Ƞ2 = 0.435]. To examine the predictive validity of the ASIS, binary logistic regression analysis was conducted and the model correctly classified 84.3% of the participants as gifted and non-gifted. For the ASIS’s concurrent validity significant correlation coefficients were found between the ASIS scores and EPTS, MAT and CSAT scores (rEPTS = .77; rMAT = .72; rCSAT = .55; p <.001). As a result of research findings it can be concluded that ASIS has satisfying criterion validity.

Keywords

• Anadolu-Sak Intelligence Scale
• ASIS
• criterion validity
• mathematical ability
• scientific creativity

References

1. An, D., Song, Y., & Carr, M. (2016). A comparison of two models of creativity: Divergent thinking and creative expert performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 78-84.
2. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357.
3. Ayas, B. (2010). Bilimsel Üretkenlik Testi’nin 6. sınıflar düzeyinde psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
4. Ayas, B. (2017). Bilimsel Üretkenlik Testi’ nin 3, 4 ve 5. sınıf öğrencilerine uygun formunun geliştirilmesi ve ön psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
5. Ayas, M. B., & Sak, U. (2008). Test of scientific creativity: It’s development and psychometric properties. 4th International Conference on Intelligence and Creativity’de sunulan bildiri. Münster, Germany.
6. Ayas, M. B., & Sak, U. (2014). Objective measure of scientific creativity: Psychometricvalidity of the creative scientific ability test. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 195-205.
7. Bermejo, M. R., Ruiz-Melero, M. J., Esparza, J., Ferrando, M., & Pons, R. (2016). A new measu-rement of scientific creativity: The study of its psychometric properties. anales de psicología, 32(3), 652-661.
8. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. Pegem Akademi.

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Çakmak, E. K. (2015). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi.
10. Carvajal, H., McKnab, P., Gerber, J., Hewes, P., and Smith, P. (1989). Counseling college-bound students: Can ACT scores be predicted? The School Counselor, 36, 186-191.
11. Cho, J., & Sung, W. (2010). Adaptive threshold technique for bit-flipping decoding of low-density parity-check codes. IEEE communications letters, 14(9), 857-859.
12. Cirik, M., Sak, U., & Opengin, E. (2020). An investigation of cognitive profiles of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder through Anadolu-Sak Intelligence Scale. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 21(4) , 663-685.
13. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
14. Dean, R. S. (1979). Predictive validity of the WISC-R with Mexican-American children. Journal of School Psychology, 17(1), 55–58.
15. DeRidder, C.M. (1987). A study of selected factors to identify sixth grade students gifted in mathematics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 4009A.
16. Dülger, E. (2018). Anadolu Sak Zekâ Ölçeği’nin ölçüt geçerliği çalışması (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.
17. Ericsson, K.A. (2003). The search for general abilities and basic capacities: Theoretical implica-tions from the modifiability and complexity of mechanisms mediating expert performance. In R. J. Sternberg and E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The psychology of abilities, compe-tencies, and expertise (pp. 93-125). CambridgeUniversity Press.
18. Feldhusen, J. E, Jarwan, E., & Holt, D. (1993). Assessment tools for counselors. In L.K. Silverman (Ed.), Counseling gifted and talented (pp. 239-259). Love Publishing.
19. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. SAGE.
20. Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15(6), 373-378.
21. Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High Ability Studies, 15(2), 119-147.
22. Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1967). Scientific creativity. Science Journal, 3(9), 80–84.
23. Gottfredson, L. S., (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13–23.
24. Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(1), 1-14.
25. Geiser, S. (2009). Back to the basics: In defense of achievement (and achievement tests) in college admissions. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41(1), 16-23.
26. Gough, H. G. (1975). A new scientific uses test and its relationship to creativity in research. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 9(4), 245-252.
27. Reha, A. (2013). Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntemler. Detay Yayınevi.
28. Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton University Press.
29. Hartlage, L.C., & Boone, K.E.(1977). Achievement test correlates of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children and Wechsler ıntelligence scale for children revised. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 1283–1286.
30. Hocevar, D. (1979). A comparison of statistical infrequency and subjective judgment as criteria in the measurement of originality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43(3), 297-299.
31. Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 389–404.
32. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Praeger.
33. Karnes, F. A., Edwards, R. P., & McCallum, R. S. (1986). Normative achievement assessment of gifted children: Comparing the K-ABC, WRAT, and CAT. Psychology in the Schools, 23(4), 346–352.
34. Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Why creativity isn’t in IQ tests, why it matters, and why it won’t change anytime soon probably. Journal of Intelligence, 3(3), 59-72.
35. Keith, T.Z. (1999). Effects of general and specific abilities on student achievement: Similarities and differences acrossethnic groups. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 239–262.
36. Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta‐analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 106-130.
37. Koenig, K. A., Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2008). ACT and general cognitive ability. Intelligence, 36(2), 153-160.
38. Koshy, V., Ernest, P., & Casey, R. (2009). Mathematically gifted and talented learners: theory and practice. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(2), 213-22.
39. Krutetskii, V. A. (1976). The psychology of mathematical abilities in schoolchildren. University of Chicago Press.
40. Lewis, M. L., & Johnson, J. L. (1985). Comparison of WAIS and WAIS-R IQs from two equivalent college populations. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3, 55–60.
41. Lubart, T. I. (1999). Creativity across cultures. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (p. 339–350). Cambridge University Press.
42. McGrew, K. S., Keith, T. Z., Flanagan, D. P., and Vanderwood, M. (1997). Beyond" g": The impact of" Gf-Gc" specific cognitive abilities research on the future use and interpreta-tion of intelligence test batteries in the schools. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 189-210.
43. Mönks, F. J., & Katzko, M. W. (2005). Giftedness and gifted education. Conceptions of giftedness, 2, 187-200.
44. Oakland, T. (1983). Joint use of adaptive behavior and IQ to predict achievement. Journal of Consting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 29–301.
45. Pallant, J. (2016). SPSS kullanma kılavuzu SPSS ile adım adım veri analizi. (S. Balcı ve B. Ahi, Çev.). Anı Yayıncılık. (2015).
46. Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creati-vity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18(11), 948-952.
47. Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 159-170.
48. Plucker, J. A., & Barab, S. A. (2005). The importance of contexts in theories of giftedness: Learning to embrace the messy joys of subjectivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. A. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd edition, pp. 201–216). Cambridge University Press.
49. Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180-184.
50. Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: An empirical test with gifted and nongifted children. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 11(4), 212-218.
51. Runco, M.A., & Chand, I. (1995) Cognition and Creativity. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 243-267.
52. Runco, M. A., Okuda, S. M., & Thurston, B. J. (1987). The psychometric properties of four systems for scoring divergent thinking tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 149-156.
53. Sak, U. (2008). Test of the three-mathematical minds (M3) for the identification of mathematically gifted students. Roeper Review, 31(1), 53-67.
54. Sak, U. ve Ayas M. B. (2009). BÜT-bilimsel üretkenlik testi: Teorik alt yapısı, geliştirilme süreci ve psikometrik özellikleri. Türkiye Üstün Yetenekli Çocuklar II. Ulusal Kongresi’nde sunulan bildiri. Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir.
55. Sak, U. (2011). Üstün yetenekliler eğitim programları modeli (ÜYEP) ve sosyal geçerliği. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(161), 213-229.
56. Sak, U. (2013). Education programs for talented students model (EPTS) and its effectiveness on gifted students' mathematical creativity. Education and Science/Eğitim ve Bilim, 38(169), 51-61.
57. Sak, U., & Ayas, M. B. (2013). Creative Scientific Ability Test (C-SAT): A new measure of scientific creativity. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(3), 316.
58. Sak, U., Karabacak, F., Akar, İ., Şengil, Ş., Demirel, Ş., and Türkan, Y. (2008). Test of mathematical talent: Its development and psychometric properties. 4th International Conference on Intelligence and Creativity, Münster, Germany.
59. Sak, U., Bal Sezerel, B., Ayas, B., Tokmak, F., Özdemir, N., Demirel Gürbüz, Ş. ve Öpengin, E. (2016). Anadolu Sak Zekâ Ölçeği (ASİS) uygulayıcı kitabı. Anadolu Üniversitesi ÜYEP Merkezi.
60. Shi, B., Wang, L., Yang, J., Zhang, M., & Xu, L. (2017). Relationship between divergent thinking and intelligence: An empirical study of the threshold hypothesis with Chinese children. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 254.
61. Silvia, P. J. (2008). Discernment and creativity: How well can people identify their most creative ideas?. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(3), 139.
62. Silvia, P. J. (2015). Intelligence and creativity are pretty similar after all. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 599-606.
63. Simonton, D. K. (1976). Biographical determinants of achieved eminence: A multivariate approach to the Cox data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(2), 218.
64. Sligh, A. C., Conners, F. A., & Roskos‐Ewoldsen, B. E. V. E. R. L. Y. (2005). Relation of creativity to fluid and crystallized intelligence. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(2), 123-136.
65. Sözel, H. K., Öpengin, E., Sak, U., & Karabacak, F. (2018). The Discriminant Validity of the Anadolu-Sak Intelligence Scale (ASIS) for Gifted and Other Special Education Groups. Türk Üstün Zekâ ve Eğitim Dergisi, 8(2), 160-180.
66. Steinberg, M., Segel, R. H., & Levine, H. D. (1967). Psychological determinants of academic success: A pilot study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27(2), 413-422.
67. Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 251–272). Cambridge University Press.
68. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General psychology, 3(4), 292-316.
69. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik. Seçkin Matbaası.
70. Şenyay, L. (2011). Sistematik örnekleme. https://kisi.deu.edu.tr/levent.senyay/ornekleme/7%20sistematik%20ornekleme.pdf
71. Terman, L. M. (1926). Genius studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
72. Wallach , M. A. , & Kogan , N. ( 1965 ). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity intelligence distinction. Rinehart, & Winston.
73. Wrigley, J. (1958) The factorial nature of ability in elementary mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 28, 61-78.