UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The early identification and relative incidence of academic underachievement : a follow-up study of.. Wetstein-Kroft, Susan Beth 1982

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


UBC_1982_A8 W48.pdf [ 3.23MB ]
JSON: 1.0054617.json
JSON-LD: 1.0054617+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0054617.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0054617+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0054617+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0054617+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0054617 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE  EARLY  IDENTIFICATION  AND R E L A T I V E  INCIDENCE  OF  ACADEMIC  UNDERACHIEVEMENT: A FOLLOW-UP  STUDY  OF A V E R A G E ,  BRIGHT  KINDERGARTEN  AND I N T E L L E C T U A L L Y  CHILDREN  by  SUSAN B.A.,  A Thesis  BETH YORK  submitted  the  WETSTEIN-KROFT UNIVERSITY,  in  requirements MASTER  1978  partial  fullfilment  for  degree  OF  the  of  ARTS  in The Faculty  We  Faculty of  The  Education  accept to  of  (School  this, thesis  the  required  University  of  June  © Susan  Graduate  Beth  as  Studies Psychology)  conforming  standard  British  Columbia  1982  Wetstein-Kroft,  1 982  of  SUPERIOR  In  presenting  requirements of  British  it  freely  agree for  this for  an  available  that  in  I for  by  understood  that  his  or  reference  and  study.  I  extensive  her  shall  of  JULY 6 1982  copying of  granted  by  the  not  be  allowed  EDUCATION Columbia  make  further this  thesis  head o f  representatives. publication of  the  University shall  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main M a l l Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  the  Library  permission.  Department  at  of  the  copying or  gain  fulfilment  that  p u r p o s e s may b e  or  financial  degree  agree  permission for  scholarly  partial  advanced  Columbia,  department for  thesis  It  this  without  my -  is thesis my  written  i i  Abstract In of  this  study,  underachievement  grade.  Moreover,  underachievement and  whether  Average  (IQ  among a  group  achieving  of  Woodcock-Johnson applied IQ  two  the  early  in  males  as  pattern the  often  Bright  (IQ In  non-verbal  IQ  relative  first  whether  than  more  graders.  to  the  females;  among  an  110-119) addition,  score  to  is  their  differed estimate  identified  as  an  all,  20%  underachievers. frequency  in  or the  higher  normally  throughout  the  underachievers in  to  of  their  two  more  Surrey the  regression  identify  a his  or  and  the  observed subject  model  discrepancies  student's  not  sample  were  underachievement females  ability were  If  the  administered  in  order  from  predicted  score  by  areas,  -1.00 he/she  underachiever.  Moreover, males  were  A linear  from  in  children  Battery.  achievement.  score  one  Columbia  data  of  In  grade  Achievement  error  achievers  first  whether  British  and  achievement  was  occurs 120+),  as  a  questioned  frequently  (IQ  group of  and  District,  standard  researcher  underachievers  hundred  between  the  more  identified  whether  peers.  One School  be  Superior  questioned  examined  could  occurs  80-109)  researcher  investigator  underachievement  Intellectually  was  the  and  was  distribution. found  non-verbal  IQ  to  differ  scores.  identified  occurred equally In  with  as  equal  represented addition,  significantly  from  iii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Abstract Table  of  ii Contents  List  of  Tables  List  of  Figures  iii .v  :  vii  Acknowledgements CHAPTER  I :  THE  viii  PROBLEM  Statement  of  Objectives  the  of  Statistical  of  Significance II:  Issues  Problem  the  Problem  of  the  Selection  7 7  Terms the  REVIEW OF T H E in  1  Hypotheses  Definition  CHAPTER  1  9 Study LITERATURE  Operational  Procedures  10  in  12  Definition  and  Underachievement  Research Theory  12  and  Achievement Superior  Research Patterns  Related of  the  to  the  Ability  Intellectually  underachiever  16  Summary CHAPTER  III:  and  20 METHODOLOGY  21  Population  21  Sample  22  Sampling  Procedures  for  the  Perks'  Research  Procedures  for  the  Follow-up  Instrumentation Analysis  of  the  study study  22 23 25  Data  35  iv  Summary CHAPTER  IV:  36 RESEARCH  Descriptive  FINDINGS  37  Statistics  37  Regression  Analysis  45  Hypothesis  One  48  Hypothesis  Two  51  Hypothesis  Three  53  Hypothesis  Four  54  Hypothesis  Five  56  Hypothesis  Six  58  Summary CHAPTER  V:  .59  DISCUSSION,  Research  SUMMARY  AND CONCLUSIONS  Findings  60 60  Summary  65  Conclusions  67  Limitations  of  Suggestions  for  Summary REFERENCES  the  Investigation  Future  Research  68 70 71 72  V  LIST  OF  TABLES  Table 1.  A Comparison Perks'  of  IQ  Distributions  identification  study  and  between  the  present  investigation 2.  Concurrent Reading  3.  4.  Validity  Coefficients  of  the  Tests  Concurrent  31 Validity  Mathematics  Tests  Concurrent  Validity  Written 5.  24  Language  Concurrent General  Coefficients  of  the 32  Coefficients  of  the  Tests  Validity  32  Coefficients  Knowledge  with  of  PIAT  the  W-J  General  Information 6.  Distribution Wechsler's  7.  Means  Means  of  Subjects  Ability  and  Predictor 8.  33 According  to  Classifications  Standard  38  Deviations  for  the  Group  and  40  Standard  Deviations  for  the  Study  Group 9.  Intercorrelations scores  10.  for  for  the  Parameters Equations  12.  the  between  Predictor  Intercorrelations scores  11.  40  Results  Study  of  the  Achievement  IQ  and  44 Achievement  Group  to  each  and  Group  between  used in  IQ  area  45  Build of  Regression  the  Regression  Achievement Analysis  46 reported  vi  in 13.  Results in  14.  Standard of  Error the  Standard  and  Achievement A  of  47  Analysis  Estimate  Coefficients:  Performance  15.  Estimate  Regression  Error  Correlation  of  Full  reported  continued  48  Verbal,  Scale  IQ  with  the  W-J  clusters  comparison  of  50  WPPSI  IQ  and  Reading  Achievement 16.  Incidence  51 of  Underachievement  in  the  Study  Sample 17.  Incidence Ability  18.  of  Underachievement  Across  Three  Groupings  Relationships and  19.  53  Area  of  Incidence  54  between  Full  Scale  IQ  Score  Achievement  of  56  Underachievement  in  Males  and  Females 20.  Incidence Females  21.  57 of  Across  Comparison of  Underachievement Four Mean  Ability  in  Males  Groupings  Performance  Scores  and 58 59  vi i  LIST  OF  FIGURES  Figure A  Comparison  between  of  Correlation  The P r e d i c t o r  and  Coef f i c i e n t s  Study Groups.  42  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Financial grant  from I  the  wish  Oldridge,  to  support  Educational thank  Dr.  encouragement  for  the  Emily and  the  Research  members Goetz  their  project  Institute  of  my  and D r .  support  was  provided of  throughout  the  a  B.C.  committee,  Harold  through  Ratzlaff  Dr.  Buff  for  execution  their  of  this  investigation. I and  would  the  their  also  principals,  interest I  like  would  and  like  their to  would  thank  teachers,  I  just  everything.  Deputy  Superintendent  secretaries,  McBurney  and c h i l d r e n  for  assistance.  thank  curious. about  to  my  especially  parents like  to  who thank  taught  me  to  be  my h u s b a n d E d  for  1  CHAPTER This  study  dissertation  in  average  District  were  In  present  on  study,  102 m e m b e r s term  of  of  In  during  grade  research  underachievement genesis Yet,  in  most  the  one  and  opportunities  These is  of  Barrett,  develops  and  intervention In  the  if  are  we  (Pringle, present  identification elementary  we  of  school  underachievement  in  to  are  high  study  among  a  the  have  Knowledge  and  School Primary  of  1981.  Reading,  achievement  during  the  find  group  1982  onset has  (Whitmore,  or  college reduced  Shaw  & McCuen,  how  to  of its  1980).  are  on  the  when  the  (Terman,  the  1960). problem  underachievement  effective  strategies  for  1980).  at  proposed the  investigator of  the  student  attention  researcher  The  that  concentrated  school  understand  underachievement years.  assessed  years  Whitmore,  the  and term  superior  1958;  earlier  to  1970;  Surrey  spring  suggests  intervention  that  average  the  later,  school  Goldberg,  agree  Doctoral  Problem  underachievement  1957;  if  the  intellectually  successful  investigators  critical  of  subject  doctoral  year.  elementary  adult  for  year  literature  the  early  studies  adolescent  1947;  in  the  and G e n e r a l one  160  Preschool  investigator  sample  Perks'  Columbia,  from  (WPPSI)  Language  to  study,  children  Statement Current  Perks'  Wechsler  Perks'  their  British  the  the  Written  PROBLEM  investigation  of  progress).  Intelligence  Mathematics,  spring  follow-up  assessed  of  of  THE  kindergarten  Scale the  a  (University  Dissertation, above  is  I:  to  examine  beginning asked  intellectually  of  the the  whether superior,  2  bright  and  first  grade  three  average and  identified  whether  of  studies  have  in  the  term  been  faulty  of  the  in  to  selecting  have  this  (Farquhar differed  (1964);  Annesley,  an  ends may  by  of have  methods  the  that  varied of  confidence.  and  used the  most  often  These  and  authors  in  be  these  to  the  of  these  design  to  of  of  and  define  the  support  on  what  issues.  the  and  Payne,  the  various  underachievers.  These  identified  selection.  identified many  the  Evaluative  analyzed  at  the  superiority  Of  the  the  adequate  with of  upper  students  underachievers. identified  as  Moreover,  superior  underachiever the  and  Investigators  Farquhar  of  model  term  underachievement  individuals  labelled  the  actual  disagree  1975).  Consequently,  of  This  discerning  (1970)  were  use  1961).  these  method  the  the  before  identify  regression and  their  between  (1963);  underachievers  the  from  Rutter,  number the  many  researchers  Chansky to  with  of  (Shaw,  treatment  incorrectly  surveyed,  achievers  1964;  distribution.  been  the  across  devoted  served  stems  should  Thorndike  Odhner  concluded  overselection  as  1965).  However,  their  been  aspects  underachievers  procedures  underachievers  early  uniform  a discrepancy  discrepancy  in  conducted  authors  has  which  Lavin,  & Payne,  studies  selection  various  describe  method  of  is  as  Unfortunately,  difficulties  achievement.  exists  attention  in  1963;  predicted  magnitude  incidence  underachievement"  order  for  identified  assumptions  major  "academic  evolved  be  underachievement.  (Thorndike,  One  its  research  theoretical  problem  can  groups.  Considerable problem  children  greater the  linear  3  regression the  prediction  selection  adopted  for  of  use  Several based  on  between  in  of  (Thorndike,  past  1963;  Regression set  of  and  measure  tends  out,  the  effect  their to  measure"  "a  to  not  underachievement" In  the  effects  present  of  "discrepancy predicted aptitude At unknown.  (p  upon and  study  the  Pringle  the  the  Based  relationship  major  on  of  a  one  one  assumption  ability  However,  to  achievement  this  high  theoretical  this  to  it be  assumption  effect. the  "likelihood  a  26).  this  such  an  with  that  as  their  extreme less  As  Thorndike  much  on  on  (1963)  one  on  the  points  has  the  any  scores  score  effect of  for  score  extreme  regression  the by  researcher defining  achievement basis  achievement"  present,  were  rendered  research  on  13).  actual the  underachievers  and  meaningless,  regression of  been  aptitude  grades,  1965 p  for  method has  that  individuals,  recognize  if  to  associated  (Lavin,  failure  questionable,  on  school be  of  achievement.  refers  estimate  assumption  child  regression  observations  aptitude  second  in  select  One  the  a  this  regarding  1975).  expect  high  consider  to  between  Rutter,  to  correspondingly  used  was  of  investigation.  achievement.  research  error  Therefore  assumptions  exists  reasonable  to  standard  research  methods  and  correspondence  failed  this the  ability in  -1.00  underachievers.  incorrect  weaknesses  was  using  the  has  the  regression  incidence  for  underachievement  from  (Thorndike,  precise (1970)  of  controlled  1963, of  suggested  p.  the as  predicted  value,  equation  between  13).  underachievement that  a  in  order  to  is find  4  effective  means  for  intellectually size  of  (p.  126).  of  the  superior,  problem Gowan  15 p e r c e n t higher  which  s h o u l d be  that  (1964)  than  the  graders.  so  the  plans  has  this,  The  underachievement  is  is  be made  is  "normal"  to for  may  be  295).  asked  greater  establish  "the  overcoming  or  in  "if  rate  factors  investigator g r o u p of  the  15 p e r c e n t  the  school  a  first  incidence in  it"  observation  current  whether  than  the  that  local  The  in  the  and  underachievement  researcher  failure  hypothesized that  (p.  of  step  can  there  corrected" incidence  educational  first  underachievement  goes  examined  remediating  the  of  population  studied. Another  theoretical  literature  is  the  Underachievers  are  underachievement level  (Lavin,  failure treated  as  the  between  the  from  bright  and  the  Consequently,  In  of  study,  of  ability  by  frequently of  frequently  the  incidence among  first in  an  of  Past  studies  of  can  (1967).  superior  group  ability  failed  only  be  according  Superior,  superior  among  estimated.  controlled  The  to  underachiever  underachievement  to  for  the  Wechsler's  researcher  asked  occurred  more  Bright  underachievement  intellectually  of  and  underachiever.  underachievement  If  ability.  have  ability  students  Intellectually  graders. an  homogeneous  investigator  grouping  for  phenomenon r e g a r d l e s s  levels  Classifications  the  a  incidence  ability  underachievement  control  average  present  whether  the  intellectually  relative  different  Intelligence  as  1959).  the  variable  group  the  in  to  same  1965; D a v i s  distinguish  children  weakness  or  Average  occurs  population  more as  the  5  literature  suggests,  achievement bright  or  should  average  examined  One  males  the  is  than  that  Clark  occurs  and  1962).  and  either  the  the  researcher  between  universally occurs  Teigland  IQ  asked  whether  and  in  attention  has  patterns  of  Gallagher  (1966)  1966)  the  incidence  males  than  This of of  females.  devoted  underachievers reasons  in  incidence  the  been  upon  frequently  al.  in  frequently  agreed  more  et  differences  achievement  than  connection,  sex  research  & Bessemer,  group  IQ  group.  1961;  more  between  relationships  each  (Shaw,  little  and  this  consistent  and  underachievement  this  underachievement  underachievement  ability  for  In  investigated  Very  correlations  lower  for  few  females  researcher  the  correlational  separately  of  findings  be  group.  the  achievement  then  to  the  (Norman,  that:  Since Terman's longitudinal studies it has g e n e r a l l y been a c c e p t e d t h a t g i f t e d students w i l l show s u p e r i o r i t y t o t h e average child in a l m o s t any m e a s u r a b l e d i m e n s i o n , whether p h y s i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t or s o c i a l or emotional adjustment (p. 131). However,  the  relative  to  work  his  of  Norman,  achieving  peers,  underachiever  demonstrates  reasoning  verbal  skills verbal  than  are  not  reasoning  etiology  of  investigation researchers between  the  as  et  a  skills,  and  asked  verbal  and  to  may  there  verbal  IQ  is  Non-verbal  reasoning  a  school  findings  of  the  on  The  significant  scores  success  influence  1964).  the  superior non-verbal  an  (Gowan,  that  in  with  have  replicate  whether non  facility  correlated  and  suggests  intellectually  skills.  underachievement attempted  the  (1962),  greater  reasoning highly  al  as the  present of  these  difference  underachiever  6  and  h i s adequately  Primary  Scale  The 1978)  of  achieving  Intelligence  Woodcock-Johnson  "is  a  set tests  aptitudes,  achievement  in  this  studies  study.  examine Full  the  correlations scores Battery as  of Achievement  However,  reports  with  the four  between  study WPPSI  early  Verbal,  measure  of  several  standardized studies  which  Performance  achievement  clusters  Reading,  the researcher  Verbal,  and  of the  Mathematics,  examined whether  Performance  clusters  different  school  with  The  Knowledge.  achievement  are s i g n i f i c a n t l y  p.1).  criterion  a r e n o known  Battery:  scholastic  the r e s u l t s  Battery  WPPSI  administered  (Manual,  was'the  there  between  and General  present  of  (1978)  (Woodcock,  abilities,  interests"  Achievement  and the four  a measure  and  Battery  individually  cognitive  the Achievement  IQ s c o r e s  Language  Psycho-Educational  Woodcock  tests.  Woodcock-Johnson  In  Tests  Preschool and  (WPPSI).  measure  the c o r r e l a t i o n s  scale  Written  that  correlating  intelligence  on t h e W e c h s l e r  of wide-age-range,  standardized  Woodcock-Johnson  peers  of  the  from zero  achievement.  and F u l l  Scale  the IQ  Woodcock-Johnson  and m e r i t s  i t s use  7  Objectives The  major  following  Are  Mathematics, from  2.  4.  Does  5. than  for  Scale  Language  from  greater  answer  the  of  and  the  WPPSI  Reading,  achievement  Achievement  underachievement  than  Battery  among a g r o u p o f  15%? of  underachievement  occur  Superior,  more  Bright  or  graders?  the c o r r e l a t i o n a l the  between  zero?  incidence  first  same  group of  relationship  between  f o r an I n t e l l e c t u a l l y  first  ability  Superior,  and  Bright  or  graders?  the incidence  of  underachievement  higher  for  males  females?  6.  Are  significantly  the  non-verbal  different  from  following  significance  was  hypotheses the  IQ  those  Statistical The  to  Knowledge  any one of an I n t e l l e c t u a l l y  group of  Is  and General  Woodcock-Johnson  the  in  Is  IQ s c o r e s  the incidence  achievement Average  are  and F u l l  different  Is  frequently Average  study  relationships  the  one c h i l d r e n 3.  this  study  correlational  Written  significantly  grade  the  Performance  scores  of  the  questions:  1. Verbal,  objectives  of  for  scores  of  underachievers  achievers?  Hypotheses  will  criterion  be t e s t e d : for  The .05  level  rejection  of  the  between  WPPSI  of null  h y p o t h e s i s. 1.  The c o r r e l a t i o n a l  Performance Mathematics,  and Written  Full  relationships Scale  Language  IQ  scores  and General  and  Knowledge  the  Verbal, Reading,  achievement  8  clusters  of  the  significantly 2. grade  differ  There  frequency  Superior group  of 4.  (IQ  each  namely, Knowledge 119)  first  differences  (IQ  among  110-119)  no  significant  relationship  between  the achievement  clusters  a  group  in the  of  an  incidence  Intellectually  or Average  (IQ  differences  WPPSI of  Mathematics,  Written  f o r an I n t e l l e c t u a l l y  Superior  (IQ  5.  are  80-109)  There  80-109) no  frequency  group  of  of  the  Scale  (120+),  sex  underachievement  IQ  the scores  Woodcock-Johnson,  Language  first  significant  Full  in  and  General  Bright  (110-  graders. differences among  a  in group  the of  graders. 6.  WPPSI  among  not exceed 15%.  Bright  are  Reading,  or  do not  graders.  underachievement  underachievement  and Average  incidence  first  Battery  graders.  There  of  Achievement  a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t  12 0 + ) ,  first  of  does  of  correlational and  in a group of  The i n c i d e n c e  one s t u d e n t s 3.  or  Woodcock-Johnson  There  is  Performance  underachieving  no  significant  or non-verbal  group  of  first  difference  IQ s c o r e  graders.  of  an  between  t h e mean  achieving  and  9  Definition The (1967)  intelligence  have  defined  been  as  on  Terms  classifications  adopted  for  use  outlined  in  this  by  Wechsler  study.  They  are  follows:  Intellectually defined  of  Superior.  The I n t e l l e c t u a l l y  a s o n e who a c h i e v e s  the Wechsler  Preschool  a Full  and  Scale  Primary  Superior  score Scale  student  is  of  120 a n d a b o v e  of  Intelligence  (WPPSI) Bright  Normal.  corresponds Preschool  The I n t e l l e c t u a l l y  to a F u l l  Scale  IQ s c o r e  and Primary  Scale  of  Average.  The I n t e l l e c t u a l l y  to  Full  a WPPSI  Dull  Normal.  corresponds the  small  the  students  ability  Scale The  number  -1.00 standard  category  Scale  classification  Dull score  in this were  (WPPSI) corresponds  90-109.  Intellectually Full  Wechsler  Normal of  classification  80-89.  intelligence  Note:  Due t o  classification  combined w i t h i n  the  average  Underachievement error  of e s t i m a t e ,  is defined or more,  as a  between  discrepancy actual  and  underachiever  if  achievement.  Underachiever. o r more  errors  between  classification  110-119 on t h e  Intelligence Average  of c h i l d r e n  in this  of  Normal  classification.  predicted  two  score  t o a WPPSI  Underachievement. of  Bright  A student  of h i s a c t u a l  of estimate,  was s e l e c t e d achievement  or more,  below  as  an  scores  predicted.  were  -1.00 standard  10  Significance Past  researchers  underachievement  in  the  1960;  Barrett,  1957).  (the  junior  it  merely  (Torrance, with  a  The  1967,  'plea'  "there years  the  are this  few  p.  at  122).  the  studies  present  researchers  have  of  to  (Whitmore,  occurs  time,  ability  levels  for  Whitmore,  school 1980).  need.  incidence  of  students  1970; to  in  different  ability"  the  underachievement  is  unknown.  the  of  underachievement  has  may  Second, at  ability.  underachievement two  responsible be  if  superior  different at  students First,  operate  factors  ability  of  as  low are  levels,  the of  Lavin  underachievement  medium o r  different  different  or  70  student  A knowledge  among  for  and  underachievement  implications.  underachievement  (p.30).  whether  intellectually  average  "factors  ability  examine  15  Past  Moreover,  failed  causing  42;  in  1964).  of  those  point  Gowan,  incidence  from  underachievement  underachieve  students  of  concluded  children  relative  levels  evident."  superior  to  high  begins,  intellectually Pringle,  out,  "this  between  frequently  points  the  superior  relative  (1965)  of  what  this  problem  researchers  1971, p.  addressed  that  anywhere  have  more  (Fox,  at  & McCuen,  blindingly  these  the  that  1980;  researchers  becomes  indicate  (Shaw  when t h e  of  through  recognized  identification  estimated  all  it  Although  early  intellectually  percent  which  not  problem  adult  records  researchers is  the  and  school  level)  investigation  the  among  school  problem begins"  present At  These  point  for  of  Study  studied  adolescent  examination  is  the  have  retrospective  high  of  at  differently levels  of  responsible as  Lavin  11  (1965)  suggests,  which  meet  questions  the  then  needs  regarding  underachievement  programmes  the  remain  of  each  of  intervention  g r o u p more  incidence unanswered.  and  can  be  effectively.  relative  designed As  incidence  yet, of  1 2  CHAPTER REVIEW OF T H E The of  review  interest.  operational the  of  the  The  underachiever.  research  related  intellectually Issues  in  involved  in  1963).  the  issues  of  are  not  has  underachiever.  An a r t i f i c a l  issues  the  study  of  Issues reported  in  in  the  to  the  identify  theory  patterns  of  and the  selection  procedures  in  to  selection the  procedures  mutually  "fundamental (Pippert  exclusive,  operational for  who  distinction  highlight  the  used  issues" &  but  Archer, function  definition is  has  selected been  drawn  implications  to  of  of as  an  between each  to  underachievement. in  the  Definition  the  "abstract" refers  level  seems  which  he  However,  of  to  consensual  definition an  operationalizing  a  difficulty  because  (Whitmore,  disagree  definition "very  of  "individual  capable"  researchers  arises  -Underachievement.  literature,  Underachievement at  presents  underachievement  implications  order  research  concerning  and  are  One's  underachievement  two  and  achiever  study  interdependently.  the  used  achievement  definition  definition  discrepant  These  areas  research  research the  and  two  issues  procedures  section  around  underachiever.  operational  underachievement  identify  second  organized concerns  selection  ability  superior  the  The  the  is  section  and The  to  LITERATURE  literature  first  definition  II  of  on  In  agreement  children  exists  underachievement. performing 1980,  p.  a  under  perform  the  167).  method  underachievement.  few  the  Part  for of  the  exactly  at  1 3  the  level  above  or  expected. below  researcher  is  271).  then  for  regarded  as  answer  any  child  have  Consequently,  efforts  are  by  to  follow,  have  a  define one  and  should  how  average  the  old  child  of  credited  with  adequately (Gowan,  However, above  expected For comparing (Rutter,  of a  answered compare  what be  is  results  adequate  average doing  p.  of  reasonably  related  who  the  is  1975).  in  researchers  of  evolved  this  any  child  a  a  in  In  child  assessed  "Thus  work an  for For  easily  the  section  of  level.  effective  expected  In  achievement  grade  p.  studies  achievement.  is  What  differently.  underachievement  (Rutter,  his  ability  of  Definition  expected  (ibid,  individual  achievement  at  tasks  how  expected  predicted?  the  The  estimated?  inconsistencies.  from expected  the  curriculum  if  ten  of he  year  fifth  grade  if  can  perform  fifth  grader"  he  average  can  be  34).  what  standard  ability? child time  the  child's This  s h o u l d be What  and  long  1975).  the  concept  deviation  is  questions  the  it  this  these  in  The  be  somewhat  270).  expectation?  Assumptions  a  average  below  p.  What it  presented.  those  1964,  should  is  ability,  handle  how  issues  asks,  can  questions.  of  Underachievement.  context  and  achievements  1975,  analysis  these  Theoretical  to  two  methodological  critical  approached  order  to  scholastic (Rutter,  significantly  Researchers  hampered  have  expectation"  must  achievement  Most  how  educators mental  approach  applied  level should  of it  be  approached age  with  resulted  in  to  the  attainment  child  of  should  be  calculated? these his the  questions  by  educational  age  calculation  of  an  1 4  Achievement obtaining by As  Quotient. an  a mental such,  achieves level,  age  age if  a  score  score a  ten  reading  he  was  However,  is  relationship error  of  (Rutter, This  there  is  (Rutter,  1975;  perfect 1975;  high  IQ  achievement  'regression  achievement  the  the  mental at  age  it  1960).  of  thirteen  the  twelve  This  approach  year has  prediction.  assumption has  by  dividing  (Gowan,  regarding  led  fallacious  between  will  by  than  1970). is  the  a  less  to  the  serious  not  on  an  assumption  achievement  The  relationship unity.  of be  explanation  This  regression. as  high  child  will  ability  by  that  and  than  effects  retarded  documented The  ability  generally  Conversely,  mean'.  and  academic  and  al.,  part,  originally to  on  achievement  test  test  derived  1942).  et.  score  higher  phenomenon,  to  in  test.  on  fallacious  based  achievement on a n  research  was  test  underachiever.  Johnson,  for,  a  him  a  and  IQ  with  on  Annesley  accounted a  an  the  an  places  relationship  can  with  which  is  intelligence  child  boy  ability  between be  year  based  approach a  from  old  Quotient  achievement  obtained  labelled  much o f  Achievement  f r o m an  score  characterized it  The  is this  follows: observed scores are determined by two factors, the true score and measurement error. We a s s u m e t h a t m e a s u r e m e n t e r r o r is random that no systematic factor influencing the error in a particular direction is involved. Thus, if a person scores high on one m e a s u r e , t h i s w i l l be due, in part to the error component. However, i f e r r o r i s random, t h i s component i s not l i k e l y to i n f l u e n c e h i s s c o r e in the same direction on the second measure.  an  perform  test.  Galton for  on  A  This called is  as  15  Consequently, he will tend to be less e x t r e m e on t h e s e c o n d s c o r e . A p p l i e d to the q u e s t i o n of academic a c h i e v e m e n t , t h i s would mean t h a t a s t u d e n t who o b t a i n e d a v e r y high aptitude score would probably be less extreme on a measure of achievement... (Lavin, 1965, p. 27). If  we  appeared clear  now  below  that  a  his  abilities  to  Thorndike  effect  has  research  reconsider  expectation reading when  Thus,  score  (1963)  "the  achievement"  achievement equation.  from a As  he  of  twelve is  years  taken  if  to  into  reading method, is  it  becomes  commensurate  account.  recognize  not  achievement  According  this  meaningless,  with  regression much o f  the  13).  (1963)  predicted  whose  deviation  failure  (p.  underachievement  boy  the  questionable  Thorndike  defining  by  regression  rendered  on  the  emphasizes as  the  value  by  the  necessity  discrepancy employing  of  a  for actual  regression  says:  ... We must predict achievement from aptitude, on the basis of the known c o r r e l a t i o n between the a p t i t u d e measure and the achievement measure. The prediction e q u a t i o n or r e g r e s s i o n e q u a t i o n t e l l s us the a v e r a g e or typical achievement score for individuals at any given aptitude level. T h i s p r e d i c t e d v a l u e i s an u n b i a s e d e s t i m a t e of a c h i e v e m e n t , and at any aptitude level positive and n e g a t i v e d i s c r e p a n c i e s between p r e d i c t e d and a c t u a l a c h i e v e m e n t a r e equally l i k e l y and the a v e r a g e d i f f e r e n c e i s zero... (p. 45). This  section  formulating was  an  pointed  underachievement Methods  for  has  examined  operational out is  definition  that  the  based  on  calculating  this  the  issues of  deviation  expectation  in  underachievment.  operational a  involved  were  definition from  It of  expectancy.  presented.  The  1 6  superiority  of  achievement  from  adopted  use  for  Issues  in  the  regression  aptitude in  this  the  underachievers. Farquhar  analyzed  and  selection  and  compared  the  into  four  distinct  same  sample  an  results  underachievers  of  depending  on  Annesley,  that  the  regression achievers. basis  (1964)  prediction limits  of  Theory  and  Patterns  as  a  that  these  Research  of  70% o f  has  been  identify  Annesley  et  Thorndike al.  (1970)  procedures  methods  method  was  all  for  were  used  to  classified  applied  to  to  to  the  Thorndike  students  of  as  (Farquhar  &  that  many They  greatest  pupils report  number  of  (1963),  Farquhar  linear of  &  regression  estimate  as  the  underachievers. Ability  and  Achievement  Underachiever  problem  of  underachievement  neglected"  superior in  the  error  Superior the  there  1970).  standard  the  the  that  identified  used  conclude  al.,  "continuously  intellectually gifted  et  selecting  refers  individuals  identified  -1.00  suggest  underachievers.  superiority  related  and  of  (1970) as  Intellectually  (1980)  the  al  studies  technique  studies,  the  using  "persistent"  education  the  model  discrepancy  the  et  number  labelled  recommend  Whitmore  Each  to  by  selection  (Annesley,  of  model  of  therefore  conducted  selection  comparative the  incorrectly  Payne  The  in  been  the  used  (1964);  various  these  have  On  studies  categories.  range  1964).  adequate  predicting  subjects.  extreme  Payne,  procedures  Payne  underachievers.  of  for  investigation.  identify  is  recommended and  Evaluative  (1963);  The  was  equation  problem  student.  America'n  schools  She  in  the  estimates  underachieve  17  p.  165).  Newland  (1976)  points  out:  For decades, information has been amassed which depicted c l e a r l y the extent to which the g i f t e d are educationally retarded in light of their respective capacities. No condition is more clearly recognized by those conversant with the field of the gifted....(p. 333). One  reason  attitudes  for  towards  development. disspelled and  "if  on  you  task, on p.  an  Genetic  held  beliefs  prodigies  replaced  with  someone  can  activities  expect  who  is  that  involving  stems  Studies that  of  a new  stereotype.  person  other  by  Termans  superior to  mental  on be  early  and  their  Genius  geniuses  out  of  from  superior  burn  overgeneralization  find  you  (1930)  were  psychotic  adolescence. The  findings  one  type  above  new  was  asserted  intellectual  average  abilities"  myth  and  of  This  or  superior  (Whitmore,  1980,  13) . A  belief  superior and  was  "neglect"  intellectually  Terman's  child  mythology  apparent  the  previously  that  based  this  remained  political  development scrutiny. American became  overall  of  the  Russian  conscience-  during  1950's  launching  level  cold  war  over  manpower adversary"  activity the  of  superiority  stricken  high  research  the  until  the  into  the  following  of  mid  the  intellectually  1950's.  brought  intellectually  technological  and  superiority  unchallenged  upheaval  The  ideological  peaked  the  of  sufficiently  Although  in  the  in  under  1957  into  question.  its  failure  to  meet  p r o b l e m of decade,  and  closer  brought "The to  the  (Tannenbaum,  social  education  superior  Sputnik  The  nation produce  threat  1972,  the  p.  of  its  22).  underachievement the  idea  that  18  "intellectually  able  the  their  level  level  of  of  the  children  majority  particularly  slow  may  in  own  potential  of  their  in  their or  own  gaining  schoolwork  fail age  to  not  achieve  group...  acceptance"  reach  even  the  has  (Pringle,  been  1970,  p.  105) . During  this  period  focusing  on  and  adult  underachiever.  his  overachieving  well poor  the  a  personality  peers  documented overall  considerable  that  body  a  popular  underachievers  adjustment  research  characteristics  A comparison was  of  patterns  of  the  of  the  amassed  adolescent  underachiever  with  research  paradigm.  have  self-concepts  low  (Gallagher,  1966;  It  is and  Whitmore,  1980). Very  little  establishing  when  1971;  Whitmore,  McCuen  (i960)  110+)  high  onset  of  boys  the in  remained  a  year.  measures  recent  in  of  One  the  students.  six  for  of  Shaw  pattern Once which  McCuen  (i960)  implications  which  may  be  there  are this  very  few  problem  with  begins"  bright  (IQ  that  the  three  for  each  both  (p.  to  at  of  indicate 1971,  that which  preventive 103).  (Fox,  school  conclude  point  for  Shaw &  underachievement  identification  studies  in  to  (Fox,  by  grade  to  the  undertaken"  early  in  worsened  has  with  begins  indicated  begun,  regarding  devoted  conducted  began  begins  concern  school  study  results  girls.  and  been  underachievement  The  problem  has  underachievement such  onset  information  difficulties, point  1980).  led  underachievement  more  pattern  persistent  "specific  attention  underachievement  grade  This  remedial  the  traced  school  and  research  and  Despite academic at p.  what 42;  19  Whitmore,  1980).  Very  little  early  ability  research and  achievement  superior  underachiever.  (1962),  compared  the  "gifted"  (IQ>  grade  Test  of  130)  Mental  underachieving higher both the  male  higher  reflect  A study ability  "gifted"  and  six  female  their  adjustment"  "interests  (p.  Another  the  by  they  had  a  language  IQ  in  well  et  patterns the  This  authors the  as,  or  al. of  215  California  found  score.  the  intellectually  that  significantly  These  score  to  Norman  Using  (CTMM)  as  devoted  achievement  children.  IQ  of  conducted  students.  non-language  been  patterns  student  than  has  and  Maturity  non-language  the  attention  was  the  (p<.00l) true  concluded  of  that  "nonachiever" rather  than,  may  one  of  123).  researcher  comments  that:  The h i g h non-verbal scores for the nonachievers may mean that the traditional c u r r i c u l u m p e n a l i z e s them f o r p o o r work in s p e l l i n g and m e c h a n i c s , and t h a t a d i f f e r e n t curriculum appealing to s p a c i a l , numerical and o t h e r n o n - v e r b a l a b i l i t i e s might improve the p r o b l e m of u n d e r a c h i e v e m e n t . Thus, the relationship between achievement, verbal i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d n o n - v e r b a l IQ s e e m s to be the converse of t h a t between achievement, verbal intelligence and creativity. The third variable i s a n e g a t i v e f a c t o r in the f i r s t r e l a t i o n s h i p , but a p o s i t i v e f a c t o r in the second. It is evident that a widerspectrum curriculum, l i k e a wider-spectrum t e s t i n g programme m i g h t do much to remove the problem of underachievement (Gowan, 1964, p. 304-5). Shaw  (1961)  universally primarily  asserts  agreed  a male  that  one  findings  problem  (p.  22).  of is  the that  It  has  few  consistent  underachievement been  estimated  and is that  20 males  outnumber  (Shaw,  1961, T i e g l a n d  that  the  female  underachievers  et  al.  disproportionate  attributed  to  emotional  difficulties adjusting  social boys  to  the  have  male  role by  expected  of  boys  the  entrance  to  professions  (p.  male  factors:  with  demanded in  of  Gowan  development  conformity  school  number  several  and  1966).  in  reading; our  boys;  the  the  of  an  average  (1964)  has  of  3:1  suggested  underachievers  can  be  the  slower  maturational,  of  boys;  the  greater  difficulty  the  culture;  sense  and  by  the  fact  lesser  that  of  degree  more  increased  prevalence  greater  is  college  of of  often going,  female  teachers  to  ability  in  299).  Summary In  this  section,  achievement underachiever attitudes child  literature  patterns was  towards  hampered  the a  It  research  been  has  achievement  underachievers.  of  reviewed.  individuals.  and  the  the It  achievement  recognition was  was  further  conducted patterns  to  of of  relevant  intellectually pointed the  out  that  underachievement  describe  the  that  intellectually  early  superior in  very  early  and  superior  intellectually  emphasized  of  the  these little  intellectual superior  21  CHAPTER  III  METHODOLOGY In  this  procedures,  section,  the  instrumentation  population,  and  data  sample,  analysis  are  research  described.  Populat ion This  study  British  was  Columbia,  situated  in  and  Douglas  the  Index,  the  Canada.  Surrey  Surrey  that  it  and  of  is  and  Surrey Surrey  includes  Islands  School  District,  in  School  District  is  the  city  (British  fishing.  commercial  of  White  Columbia  including  Scandinavian employed  in  the  estate,  Surrey  labour  force  local  Rock  Regional  District  secondary  low  62% o f  in  defence,  senior  has  the  areas  are  labour  ethnic and  force  are  mines,  Approximately insurance,  community, Index,  real  business  and  1978).  62 e l e m e n t a r y  secondary  tourism  many  fishing,  finance,  the  Italian  transportation.  employed  in  include  by  the  Delta  residential  lying  German,  forestry, and  and  agriculture,  represented  Surrey 4  and  industries  Columbia Regional  36,  schools;  the  French,  administration, (British  Richmond  concentrated  forestry,  Approximately  are  is  while  is  construction  service  School  The  agriculture,  public  personal  Rock  British,  peoples.  manufacturing, of  of  to  agricultural  wood p r o d u c t s ,  population  similar  development  agricultural.  and  groups  both  and White  of  The  considered  Residential  manufacturing  junior  the  The  Barnston  Area  Cloverdale  primarily  38%  Area  supports  lifestyles. areas  in  1978).  The in  conducted  schools;  schools;  and  8 3  22  junior-senior children in  the  at  secondary  the  first  schools.  elementary  grade  school  (personal  There level  are  and  currently  2,474  communication,  9,224  children  May,  1982,  are  District  Office). In boys  the  and  School  current 62  girls)  District  children  investigation, from  25 e l e m e n t a r y  participated  were  between  the  present  6-3  102 g r a d e  and  in  the  7-3  years  is  a  one  children  schools  in  follow-up of  the  (40  Surrey  study.  The  age.  Sample As  investigation a  and  description  followed  by  Sampling  due  of  the  study to  the  Perks'  sampling  interdependence sampling  procedures  Procedures  for  the  selected  25 e l e m e n t a r y  schools  Letters  of  parental  consent  children  enrolled  kindergarten parental  consent,  Kindergarten Test The  formed first  who  the  who  selected  in  the  from  of  "Academically  participation  in  the  next  tested  randomly District. all  of  two  Group  VKT.  Vane  groups. included  The  those  second  children  Following  Ability" group  the  Kindergarten  into  VKT.  the  Pending  on  Vane  the  stage  study.  with  included  Able"  presented  current  Ability"  "Average  samples,  schools.  the  the  two  are  home  on  doctoral  Perks'  children  85-115  the  the  School  25  were  the  on  Perks'  study.  "Average  118-155  the  sent  results  the  in  these  dividing  of  Surrey  "Academically-Able"  80 c h i l d r e n  for  the  were  between  between  from  The  for  scored  scored  children  (VKT).  used  Perks'  in  to  procedures  children  designated  designated  procedure,  the  basis  group,  children group,  Test  follow-up  g r o u p and were  the  this 125  randomly  study.  The  23  next  stage  Wechsler the  randomly  Research  consent  the  Surrey of  2.  Each  participants  the  same  school.  3.  A list was  up  to  follow-up In  follow-up  of  the  25  5.  of  Perk's  of  children  were  in  tested. were on  April  1982.  were  individually  Battery  by  assistants.  the  Deputy  Perks'  in  the  (WPPSI)  to  her  Superintendent's  released  research  the  names  study  study.  to  the  No  other  and asked  whether  in  one  released.  was  contacted  were  enrolled  currently children  of  child's  and  in  grade  attendance  from were  included  Perks'  at  not  at  the  same  of  160  sample  therefore  hundred  permission  continued  included  received  in  the  and  tested  and two on  from four  children,  investigator  drawn in  the  102 p a r e n t s . children  from  All each  sample.  continued  the  were  participation  Woodcock-Johnson  1982  current  was  parental  Approximately  the  March One  was  schools  Permission  schools  commenced  Thirty  their  Testing  the  follow-up  study  130 l e t t e r s  study.  102 c h i l d r e n  Intelligence  of  study.  all,  requesting  the  principal  different  administration  Study  District,  children  compiled.  moved  4.  the  school  the  from  participants  conducting about  of  Follow-up  School  the  the  children.  the  information  the  selected  Scale  Following  investigator  in  Primary  the  schools  had  and  involved  for  of  school  study  Procedures  1.  and  the  Preschool  205  office  of  Achievement until  the  40 b o y s  beginning and  Woodcock-Johnson and  two  Battery  62  of  girls  Achievement  trained  research  24  6. the on  Once  WPPSI these  Verbal, same  grouped  were  subjects  their  children  to their in  into  representation  between  of  Perks'  IQ  Superior  Superior Bright Average Low  (130+)  (110-119)  (90-109)  Average  another  The  Wechsler's  in  the  (1967)  distribution  Perks'  study  and  Sample  comparisons  study  of  study  Children Follow-up  Percentage  21  1 3  61  36  28  77  49  31  63  47  26  55  7  4  57  (80-89)  Totals  7.  on t h e WPPSI.  Study  (120-129)  Normal  then  1  Classification  Very  obtained were  and the f o l l o w - u p  Perks'  released  study.  Number Intel1igence  score  categories  scores:  study  IQ s c o r e s  1 compares  in the follow-up  Perks  The c h i l d r e n  with  Table  Table Distribution  Scale  accordance  these  Scale  earlier.  Full  Classications. falling  was c o m p l e t e d ,  and F u l l  one y e a r  formed  Intelligence  collection  Performance  according  groups  of  the data  160 The s c o r i n g graduate  of  the  student.  1 02 Woodcock-Johnson  Ninety-five  percent  was  verified  by  verification  was  obtained. 8.  In  preparation  for the data  analysis,  the subjects  were  25  then d i v i d e d programme the  into  two s u b - g r o u p s .  Range,  approximately,  a b i l i t y groupings  are  identified  "Predictor "Study build  group". the  resulting  the  of  the  sections  The r e m a i n i n g 68 The  Predictor  parameters values  1/3  the  for  the  These  to  subjects  G r o u p was  the  computer in each  34  are  as  the  designated  selected  of  children  follow  regression  were t h e n a p p l i e d to  SPSS  children  were randomly s e l e c t e d .  throughout  Group".  Through  the  in order  equations.  to The  Study  Group.  1968)  was d e v e l o p e d  Instrumentat ion The Vane K i n d e r g a r t e n T e s t The order  to  behavior  Vane  Kindergarten  "evaluate  the  adjustment  dissertation the  study  (ibid).  (Vane,  and academic  young c h i l d r e n "  used  proposal,  Vane K i n d e r g a r t e n  Test  Test  instrument  1968)  intellectual of  The Vane K i n d e r g a r t e n screening  (Vane,  (VKT) i n the  Perks' Test  the  Perks'  the  screening  1968,  p.  In her  reasons  for  instrument  and 12).  preliminary  study.  o u t l i n e d her  as  They were as  was  (Vane,  potential  in  group  doctoral selecting in  her  follows:  The three subtests (vocabulary, perceptualm o t o r , and draw a man) deal w-ith factors which have been f o u n d t o be good i n d i c a t o r s of s c h o o l s u c c e s s ; the s c o r i n g system of the VKT c o v e r s a wide range of scores (two standard deviations below the mean t o f o u r standard deviations above the mean); directions for a d m i n i s t r a t i o n are p r e c i s e ; g u i d e l i n e s t o a i d i n t h e s c o r i n g of the VKT a r e s t a t e d c l e a r l y ; s c o r i n g can be c o m p l e t e d r a p i d l y ; t e a c h e r s a r e a b l e t o a d m i n i s t e r the VKT ( p . 7) . Organization parts,  of  the  a Perceptual-Motor  scale. subtest,  The  VKT  is  a Draw-A-Man  composed of subtest  three and  a  26  Vocabulary to  a  subtest.  The  .4  boys 1/2  to  and  the  6 years.  sample;  was  for  Four  status 4  from  representative  of  was  the  can  conducted week  United  children retest  was  with  a  test-retest  be  administered  test-retest  interval  150  The  .68  comparable 1977,  .65  for  kindergarten  months. was  seven  p.  the  stability 35).  Jersey  conducted of  over  and  from  entire ratio  of and  1960  census  entire  is  not  of  VKT  The  Full The  VKT.  studies  VKT.  sample  considered  The  with  was  5  interval  Group  retest  computed The  The  test-  reliability two  contained  interval  VKT  36  test-  groups.  test-retest  the  with  The  children.  coefficient  of  reliability  (1977)  two  test-retest  seven-month  an  to  study  conducted  Powers for  order  first  months.  scale.  "Thus  in  test-retest  study  .88.  reliability  a  the  the  The  two  the  The  was  months.  Full  age  of  subjects  of  children  second  children.  test-retest  with  New  coefficients  the  in  urban-rural  140 p r e - k i n d e r g a r t e n  was  sample  ranging  white  group.  interval  reliability  a  States.  coefficient  retest  The  age  testings. The  on  comprised  to  kindergarten  .97.  group contained  was  and  (1968)  two  first  coefficient  black  reliability  14  reliability  children 1968).  6 year  the  the  intervals'  representative  York  with  between  of  New  Vane  standardized  year  (Vane,  to  test-retest  coefficient  the  subtests  was  hundred  were  1/2  Reliability. assess  VKT  half  sample  the  drawn  at  proportion  socioeconomic figures  The  50 g i r l s  standardization  one  two  group. Standardization.  50  first  for  was  this  seems  period"  10  group to  have  (Powers,  27  Validity Binet  Form  the  The  samples. VKT w i t h  vocabulary  separate  (1974)  subtest.  The  Readiness obtained  sufficient  planning  for  Wechsler  Preschool  the Stanford-Binet  found  and Primary  (Powers,  Scale  of  of VKT  with  the  of  the  most  t h e VKT does  in  Vocabulary  .53  f o r use in assessment  children"  the  the Stanford  "Although  212  validity  that  correlated  significant,  validity  individual  She  Tests.  were  containing  the p r e d i c t i v e  .47 with  VKT  Stanford-  .76 with  assessed  correlated  the  each  one a c h i e v e m e n t .  subtest  correlations  t h e VKT w i t h  samples  correlated  Powers  Metropolitan  have  VKT  grade  Achievement  to  (1968) c o r r e l a t e d  L-M f o r t w o  children. both  Vane  not  appear  a n d programme  1974, p.  Intelligence  1003). (Wechsler,  1967) The W e c h s l e r (WPPSI)  is  Preschool  an  individually  designed  for children  WPPSI  the predictor  is  between  1/2  100 g i r l s years.  at  select  six half  Twelve  standardization  sample  geographic  location,  occupation  (Wechsler,  Reliability.  and  for  correlated  the  administered  in the  WPPSI  year  hundred  sample.  a normative  computed  The  Scale  4 a n d 6 1/2  measure  Standardization. and  and Primary  of  intelligence  years  was s t a n d a r d i z e d  children  ranging  comprised  T h e 1960 U . S .  census  representative  of  1967, p.  Split-half Verbal,  of  test  age.  The  investigation.  age i n t e r v a l s  urban-rural  Intelligence  residence;  from the  data  the  o n 100 b o y s 4 to 6 entire  was u s e d  population  colour  and  to by  father's  13-14). reliability  Performance  by t h e S p e a r m a n - B r o w n  coefficients  and F u l l  Formula.  Scale The  IQ  were scores  reliability  28  coefficients  are  Concurrent Stanford-Binet Scale; .92  from  .94,.93, Validity.  .33 to  for gifted  the  test  two t e s t s  between samples  than  (ibid).  increases  the Stanford-Binet  .30  with  child,  with  Scale  Word  of  scores  the  socioeconomic  status  subtests score group  children of  correlated  years  with  were were  .66  (1973) Tests.  Reading  and  of  are  a  more  between  the c h i l d .  Word  The  become  in  & Woo-Sam,  Knowledge and  tested  with  .30 total  with  on  first  the  Test.  reading  t h e WPPSI  Knowledge, Mathematics  reading  stratified The  for  following  reading  achievement  The F u l l  Scale  WPPSI  socioeconomic  groups. with  subjects  the sample.  predictive  grade  i n the lower  socioeconomic  raw s c o r e .  the  on t h e W P P S I .  Achievement  Word  examined  children,  tested  Thirty-one  .35 with  Reading,  .44 t o  considered  the scores  .35 with  (1969)  one  correlated  of age c o m p r i s e d  correlated  Verbal  and from  1 9 6 8 ; Zimmerman  predicting  grade  and .40 i n the upper  Achievement  (Rellas,  for  the Stanford  Kaufman  the  Discrepancies  discrepant  Krebs  WPPSI  Seventy  the  is  the i n t e l l i g e n c e  correlated  Validity.  achievement.  year,  Scale  T h e WPPSI  more  for  Analysis.  Predictive validity  the  t h e WPPSI a n d  and the Stanford-Binet  the Stanford-Binet.  favour  Full  .92  1974).  1974).  t h e WPPSI  the  1970).  .33 to  (Sattler,  brighter of  from  (Sattler,  between  .88 f o r the Performance  Scale.  Correlations  difficult  Correlations  F o r m L-M r a n g e  f o r the F u l l  lower  and .96 r e s p e c t i v e l y  the  between  T h e WPPSI  Full  .30 with  Word  and  The l a t t e r  Metropolitan  .37  6 a n d 6 1/2 Scale Analysis,  with  the  two c o r r e l a t i o n s  score .36 total were  29  significant  at  Oldridge carefully  the  .05  and A l l i s o n  developed  intelligence  level.  that  and  (1968) well  warrants  concluded  that  standardized widespread  "the  WPPSI  instrument  of  acceptance  is  a  general  ..."  (p.  Two  Tests  348). The of  Woodcock-Johnson  Battery:  Part  Achievement The  of  Psycho-Educational  wide  range,  measure and  Woodcock-Johnson individually  cognitive  interest"  are  (Woodcock,  subtests Part  Tests  four  Written Battery  of  contains  scholastic  and  this which  combine  Mathematics, Reading  cluster  Identification,  The to  the  designed  is  (1978)  Word  to  one  that  achievement  Psycho-  subtests  which  consists  of  cognitive  Reading,  12  abilities.  10 s u b t e s t s  designed  to  Mathematics,  Part  assess  Three  of  preference  Attack  is  the  of and  and  consists  the for  of  measure 10  in  subtests Reading,  Knowledge.  subtests;  Passage  Woodcock-  clusters,  General  three  The  criterion  achievement  Language up  Subtests.  Battery  four  made  set  activities.  Achievement form  27  Knowledge.  Achievement  Battery  Written  of  achievement,  nonscholastic of  Part  contains  General  "a  tests  aptitudes,  contains  assessment  school  standardized  is  The W o o d c o c k - J o h n s o n  1978)  Achievement  Battery  1).  parts.  5 subtests  Achievement  study.  the  and  Organization Johnson  three  of  Language  p.  Battery.  (Woodcock,  on  areas  scholastic  1978,  the  into  focusing  Two,  assess  of  Battery  organized  administered  abilities,  Organization Educational  Psycho-Educational  The  Letter-Word  Comprehension.  The  30  Mathematics Applied  cluster  is  Problems.  contains cluster  two is  Science,  composed of  The  third  subtests,  General  Social  race,  and  1970  and  from  4,732  The  subjects  ranging  establish Expected  the  Grade Grade  individual  The  be  He  studies  reports  the  The  three  and fourth  subtests,  validities  content  validity,  and  validity  studies  data  65 y e a r s  were  of  of  of  the  collected  age  data  age,  type  from  were  49  used  Percentile  .81 as  to  to  Ranks,  reported  Algozzine,  reports the  the  of  construct  validity.  the  current  "The by  & Shinn,  of  the  validity  In  (1978)  1981).  of  several  instrument. studies:  and  for  technical  Woodcock  results  norming  types  coefficients  .95.  (predictive  to  and  representative  reliability  from  four  criterion-related  by  Tables.  during of  stratified  region  Equivalencies,  (1978)  relevant  was  Normative  (Ysseldyke,  results  up of  3 to  Battery  conducted  made  are  States.  range  Woodcock  Proofing.  Normative  from  Range  the  adequate"  Va1idity. validity  of  each  test-retest  subtests  characteristics to  and  and  Language  and  sample  data.  Age  Scores  Written  geographic  of  United  and  Reliabi1i ty.  appear  status,  census  Calculation  Humanities.  proportions  in  is  norming  1976 U . S .  communities  the  The  It  subtests, is  Dictation  Studies  occupational  community.  cluster  Knowledge.  Standardization.  two  the  concurrent);  this  section,  research  the  study  are  the  four  presented. In  order  Woodcock-Johnson and  82  fifth  to  assess  Achievement grade  the  current  clusters,  children  from  83  validity third  12 e l e m e n t a r y  of  grade  children  schools  in  the  31  Anoka-Hennepin following  instruments:  (Hieronymous Test  (Minnesota)  Achievement Achievement Reading  Psycho-Educational  between Johnson  2-5  the  summarize  individual  Achievement  Bijou  the  and  correlation  and  1970);  Form  Individual Wide  Range  Woodcock  Woodcock-Johnson  coefficients  clusters  each  of  the  of  the  the  Reading  obtained Woodcock-  aforementioned  instruments. Table Concurrent  Validity  2  Coefficients  of  Tests  (WRMT) N  Grade W-J  5  PIAT  WRAT  WOODCOCK-READING  Sample  Reading  Grade W-J  3  IOWA  Ach  83  .81  .91  .89  .92  86  .76  .75  .84  .87  Sample  Reading  Ach  5  Arithmetic  1965);  the  the  1978).  achievement  Battery  Skills,  Peabody  Jastak,  1973)  (Woodcock,  Basic  1971);  &  c o m p a r e d on  Diagnostic  Markwardt,  (Woodcock,  Battery  were  of  Keymath  &  (Jastak, Tests  Tests  & Pritchett,  (Dunn  Test  District  Iowa  1971);  Natchtman  Test  Mastery  Tables  The  & Lindquist,  (Connolly,  School  32  Table Concurrent  V a l i d i t y Coef f i c i e n t s of  N  Grade W-J  5  IOWA  Concurrent  W-J  W-J  5  PIAT  WRAT  .62  .82  .70  .46  86  .77  .80  .69  .78  Validity  Coefficients  4 of  the  Written  Language T e s t s  N  IOWA  PIAT  WRAT  83  .84  .78  .83  86  .80  .76  .71  Sample  Written  Grade  KEYMATH  Tests  83  Table  3  Mathematics  Sample  Mathematics  Grade  the  Sample  Mathematics  Grade W-J  3  3  Language  Sample  Written  Language  33  Table Concurrent  Validity with  5  Coefficients  Piat  General  of  W-J  2  W-J  5  Knowledge  The  Knowledge  results  the  Reading  Achievement used  .71  .68  of  the  concurrent  Achievement  Battery  cluster  correlates  .75  The  Language  Achievement  Written .84  with  results  are  other  tests  Peabody  .72  with  Individual compares  instances  to  evaluations" Scoring scoring  the  the  of  well  in  General  and  instruments  techniques  for  cluster  is  score  Woodcock-Johnson  the .92  Reading  with  commonly  between  Achievement.  4. Achievement  Information  subtest  "It  appears  fact used  superior in  cluster of  the  that  the  in  most  psychoeductional  157). (1978)  has  provided  interpretation. was  other  correlates  Language  Knowledge  in  indicate  Achievement.  cluster  presently  Woodcock test  of  Test.  1976, p.  Procedures.  studies  to  Table  General  with  validity  Written  Achievement  (Woodcock,  subject's  assess  illustrated  Woodcock-Johnson  correlates  each  86  to  The  of  .72  designed  Battery  INFORMATION  83  instruments  and  These  PIAT-GENERAL  Sample  General  that  Knowledge  Sample  General  Grade  W-J  Information  N  Grade  the  converted  In  into  a  variety  this  study,  it's  age  score  34  equivalent. in  terms  average 1978,  The of  subjects  had  scores  (Woodcock,  the  standard  score  deviation  of  their  and  Reasons  for  the  as  the  the  rank  the  selected or  lower  63).  Finally,  score  tests  based  for  the the  achievement  Tables  step  than  was on  the  selection  in  same  of  the  to  converted 100 a n d a  of  who  rank to  a  standard  ranks in  place  a  score"  percentile  provided  order  sample  cluster  percentile  are  scale  of  to  percentage  norming  was  the  (Woodcock,  the  subjects  on a mean  which  converted  subjects  converting  taken  the  areas  equivalents  then  indicates of  at  score"  was  segment  performance  sample  subject's  percentile  as  subject's  norming  The  equivalent  This  in  "the  score  p.  15.  achievement  level  same  four  standard  materials.  reflects  subject's  same  1978,  of  age  The  in  the  score  the  rank.  of  each  is  63)  percentile  in  the  score p.  age  into  the  the  test  ability  measurement.  Woodcock-Johnson  Achievement  Battery The  Woodcock-Johnson  the  criterion  are  as  The  content 2.  to  be  in  this  study  Battery  for  several  subtests  provide  was  selected  reasons.  as  They  follows:  1. of  measure  Achievement  ten  in  The  several technical  adequate 3.  The  approximately  achievement areas  of  achievement  characteristics  (Ysseldyke,  Algozzine  administration 45 m i n u t e s  and  of  broad  (Woodcock, the  & Shinn,  the  sustains  of  a  1978).  instrument  appear  1981).  achievement the  sampling  battery  attention  of  takes young  children. 4.  Directions  for  the  administration  of  the  Battery  are  35  c l e a r and p r e c i s e . 5.  The B a t t e r y h a s a p p r o p r i a t e b a s a l s and accommodates t h e  h i g h c e i l i n g a t t a i n e d by I n t e l l e c t u a l l y  Superior  children.  36  Analysis This  study  prediction variable both in  of  the  prediction  As  (see  They  were  the  Predictor  contained  34  of  deviations,  for  the  data  predictor  incorporates  considerations  the  the  and  Scores  were  the  statistical  outlining  were  Study  divided  Group.  randomly  into  The  selected  The  Study  involved  analysis  of  the  research  two  subgroups,  Predictor through  Group  on  the  regression  the  were  four  Group  the  SPSS  contained  the  to  the  Study in  each and  recorded. score  by  of  one  on  the  the  Predictor  the  standard  WPPSI  Full  from  the  Group.  These  was  then  obtained  scores  equations. analysis  predicted four  and  achievement  discrepancies  child's  standard  build  means,  clusters  The  the  the  to  Achievement  negative  If  order  between  regression  Group.  positive  equations,  regression A  In  coefficients  established  Analysis.  subject The  Coefficient.  correlation  and  Regression  obtained  the  Range.  four  applied  were  section  subjects  Correlation  Woodcock-Johnson  his  of  from a  the  children.  Pearson's  scores  prediction,  (achievement)  analysis  used  the  children  68  charted.  of  follows:  Group and  remaining  each  as  102  programme  for  concept  2).  were  in  computer  conducted  The  Data  Statistics  procedures,  values  the  measure  chapter  indicated  parameters  the  and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  techniques  data.  Scale  on  criterion  theoretical  Descriptive  the  a  based  (intelligence).  Four the  was  of  error  predicted of  clusters between score  estimate  in  were these  exceeded at  least  37  two  subject  areas,  Inferential Chi Fit  Test  Statistical  and  the  Chi  to  the  and  identified  as  Test.  Chi  Statistical  in  the  The  underachiever.  order  to  Square  Test  of  association  of  Goodness-of-  Association  determine  The  appropriate  t-tests  the  were  incidence  underachievement  were  determine  whether  the  differences  relationships  within  the  different  statistically to  an  of  with  respectively. t-Tests.  to  Square  data  underachievement sex  was  Statistics  Square  applied  s/he  significant.  determine  whether  underachievers  were  In  the  WPPSI  significantly  in  the  ability  addition,  mean  applied  t-tests  to  data  correlational groupings  were  were  used  also  Performance  different  the  from  scores those  of of  achievers. Summary Chapter from the  which  three  the  sampling  research  concluded  with  sample  was  procedures  procedures  description  chapter  study  began  a  drawn,  employed  in  the  current  was  presented.  instrumentation  with  the  plan  for  results  the of  the  Perks'  analysis data  of  an  population outline  of  and  the  study  investigation.  data.  analysis.  the  by  in  the  the  followed  of  used  of  presents  description  The The  A  chapter following  38  CHAPTER RESEARCH The around the  presentation  the  three  stages  descriptive  correlation regression resulting  from  the  section  is  organized  statement  of  of of  the  analysis  and  Descriptive  I.Q. 78  analysis.  (means, which  In  is  is  the  outlined  in  the  the  the  analysis  around  In  standard  built  presented.  results  One  schools  was first  section,  parameters  next  section  presented.  chapter  organized  deviations  research  presented  and  for  the  the  The  data final  hypotheses  one.  A  followed  and  restatement by  the  method  obtained.  The  hundred and in  the  study.  children  distribution to  data  findings  Statistics  follow-up  study.  of  hypothesis  the  Subjects.  the  research  regression  objectives  research  elementary  the  coefficients) are  FINDINGS  of  statistics  analysis  IV  two  Surrey There  ranged  ranged  subjects  School were  in  age  District  40 b o y s  from  f r o m a WPPSI  representing  6-3 Full  participated  and to  25  62 g i r l s  7-3  Scale  in  the  years. I.Q.  in  The  score  of  144. The  Reading  Mathematics Language scores  Achievement  Achievement  between  ranged  84 a n d  between  Information education policy  of  prevented  informat ion.  ranged 135;  75 a n d  regarding  the the  scores  parents  ranged  between and  General  between  83  and  81  135;  Knowledge  and  135;  Written  Achievement  135. the was  researcher  socioeconomic not  collected  from  gaining  status  and  because  District  access  to  this  39  Selection  of  the  parameters  for  sample  34 c a s e s  of  entire  sample  Range.  In  sample  was  the  of  order  regression (the  102 to  Group.  randomly  Group)  using  the  select  according  The  In  to  stratified  were  selected  computer  34 c a s e s ,  Wechsler's of  develop  subjects  random from  the  programme, the  entire  (1967) are  the  ability  presented  in  6.  Distribution Study  of  Groups  Subjects  according  Ability  6 in to  the  Ability  Classification  Superior  Superior Bright Average  Predictor  in  Group  Representation Study  •9  28  9  19  (110-119)  31  1 0  21  (90-109)  26  9  1 6  4  1  3  34  68  (120-129)  1 02  Predictor As  Table  Group 6  represents  illustrates,  one-third  approximately  of  in  Group  4  Totals  sample.  (1967)  1 3  Normal  The  and  Classifications  N  (130+)  Predictor  Wechsler's  Representation  Dull  a  SPSS  these  to  distribution  Table  Very  order  equation,  Predictor  subjects  grouped  classifications. Table  Predictor  the  one-third  entire of  the  40  subjects  within  each the  ability  inclusion  in  comprised  the  Subsample  Comparisons  on  means,  standard  the for  I.Q.  was  in  order  to  build  the  were  to  a  Tables  applied  7 and  Predictor  standard approximate  8  comparison  coefficients that  to  and  values  Study of  the of  Predictor for  the  the  Study  illustrate  deviations the  the  These  the  Groups the  obtained  the  in  and c o r r e l a t i o n  ensure  for  of  subsamples  measures.  parameters  then  selected  Sixty-eight  stages  Group approximated those obtained  the  two  First,  values  for  the  Achievement  the  values  first  and c o r r e l a t i o n  drawn  Predictor  The  deviations  reasons.  deviations  Group.  randomly  for  subjects  Group.  describing  and  two  Predictor  Study  focused  g r o u p i n g were  of  coefficients values  of  the  values  between obtained  means,  standard  the  subgroups from  Group.  G r o u p were  their  were  obtained  Study  regression  the  Second,  needed  in  equations.  order These  Group.  means  and  standard  respectively. Predictor  from  analysis  terms  between  the  data  the  Study  The  Group Group.  deviations means  and  reasonably  41  Table Means  and  the  Standard  Predictor  Deviations  Scale  IQ  for  G r o u p N=34  Mean  Var i a b l e  Full  7  Standard  Deviation  1 14.44  1 3.76  Reading  1 12.76  14.36  Mathematics  103.38  13.31  Written  Language  108.47  1 3.79  General  Knowledge  106.11  1 4.79  Table Means  and  Standard  the  Study  Var i a b l e  Full  8 Deviation  G r o u p N=68  Mean  Scale  Standard  Deviation  115.94  1 2.98  Reading  113.19  13.17  Mathemat i c s  103.13  10.89  Written  Language  106.82  13.50  General  Knowledge  104.98  1 3.36  Figure from  the  IQ  for  1 compares Predictor  the Group  correlation to  the  values  coefficients derived  from  obtained the  Study  42  Group. and  The  correlation  Written  Language  between  General  points  between  between  these  within  coefficients  were  Knowledge the  reasonable  similar.  The  a n d WPPSI  full  Predictor  correlation limits.  for  and  Study  coefficients  Reading, correlation Scale  IQ  Groups. was  Mathematics coefficient  differs The  by  17  difference  considered  to  be  Figure A C o m p a r i s o n of between  the  Pearson  1  Correlation  Predictor  and  Coefficients  Study  Groups  85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 C o r r e l a t i on 40 between  35  IQ  30  and  Achievement  25 20 1 5 10 Reading  Mathematics  Written Language  Achievement  General Knowledge  Clusters  •  Full  Scale  IQ  score  with  Achievement  - Study  Group  °  Full  Scale  IQ  score  with  Achievement  - Predictor  Group  44  Tables Reading, the  Predictor  obtained with  and  Mathematics,  Within  and  the  with  Written  intercorrelations and G e n e r a l  the  Language.  highest  Written  Mathematics,  correlations  between  Knowledge  for  respectively.  Group,  with  the  Language  Groups  Predictor  .76  All  10 i l l u s t r a t e  Study  Written  Reading,  Knowledge. (p  9  were  correlations  Language and  correlated  .70  significantly  were  with  .86  General  different  from 0  < .01) . With  respect  to  were  between  Written  and  Reading  (.71).  Written  the  Language  Language.  significantly  Study  different  and  General All from  Group,  the  Reading  Knowledge  correlation 0  (p  <  .001).  highest (.80);  correlations  and  correlated  Mathematics .57  coefficients  with were  45  Table Intercorrelations Scores  Full  for  Scale  the  9  between  IQ  Predictor  Reading  Scale  IQ  Reading Mathematics Written  Language  General  Knowledge  p  <  .01  .51  Achievement  Group  Mathematics  (N=34)  Written  General  Language  Knowledge  .65  .60  .80  .65  .86  .57  .76  .58  IQ  Full  and  .70  46  Table Intercorrelations  between  IQ  Study  Full  Full  Scale  Scale  IQ  .49  Reading  and Achievement  Math  Writ  Language  General  Knowledge  p  <  The  the  General  .51  .60  .71  .80  .58  .62  .47  Knowledge  .57  obtained  Mathematics, from  parameters equations  Analysis  correlations  Reading,  Table  for  .001  Regression  The  Lang  .51  Mathematics Written  Scores  G r o u p N=68  Reading  IQ  10  the for  were  parameters 11.  between  Written  Predictor the  each  Full  G r o u p were  One  Scale  Language,  regression  developed. for  WPPSI  for  then  regression  score  and G e n e r a l used  equations. each  IQ  area equation  to Four  of are  and  Knowledge build  the  regression  achievement. presented  in  47  Table Parameters  Used  Equations  in  to  11  Build  each  Area  the of  Regression  Achievement  Standard Error  Intercept  Slope  of  Reading  0.537  51.33  12.51  Mathematics  0.634  30.85  10.21  Written  Language  0.607  39.03  11.14  General  Knowledge  0.862  7.46  8.96  Results  of  regression discrepancy his  the  analysis between  predicted  he/she  was  the  score  as  -1.00 an  of  the  in  at  least  by  an  obtained standard  asterisk.  Study two  Group subject  results  Table  in  underachiever  20%  underachieving indicated  subjects by  The  Analysis.  presented  are  identified  Approximately  are  Regression  score error in  Estimate  of  that  were areas.  12.  of  the  If  the  differed  from  estimate,  then  subject found  area. to  be  Underachievers  48  Table Results  12  of t h e R e g r e s s i o n Standard  A n a l y s i s Reported i n  Errors  of  Sub-  Reading Mathematics  Written  ject  Achieve Achievement  Achievement  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7  18  19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  -.10 -.15 0 -.35 -1.04* -.04 .28 . 1 1 .47 1 .03 .79 .99 -.50 .22 -.38 -.94 -.54 -.63 -1.59* -1.51* 1 .65 -.43 -.43 . 08 .92 .64 .08 -2.52* 1 .47 .07 . 1 9 -.57 -.37 -.05 .58 1 .62 -.38 -.42 1 .26 .62 -.26  .26 -1.12* .91 .09 -.68 . 1 4 .43 -.28 .24 1 .03 1 .42 1 .36 .39 . 1 9 -.36 -.65 .03 -.29 -.78 -.49 .24 1 .02 1 .1 2 -.41 . 1 1 .64 1.13 -1.29* 1 .46  .81  -.14 -.07 -.92 -1.41* -.06 .23 -.06 -1.30* 1 . 44 .36 -.91  Estimate  Lang G e n . Knowledge F u l l  .68 -.40 1 .92 -.15 -.67 -.28 -.37 -1.29* -.35 .63 1 . 53 .49 - 1.38* -.66  -.81  -1 . 7 9 * -1 . 2 5 * .70 -.74 -2.44* 1 .09 .56 -.97 -.49 .63 .30 -.24 -1.91* .97 .28 -1.12* -1.87* -.76 .23 .39 1 .29 -1.32* -.38 .07 .69 -1.37*  Achievement .93 .22 1 .03 -.71 - . 44 -.98 -.31 .50 -.71 1 .07 2; 30 .64 -1.43* -1.88* 2.49 -.97 1 .93 .06 -1.05* .06 -.43 -.03 -.37 1.21 .45 .24 .35 -1.64* 1.81 -2.30* -1 .39 -1.18* .28 -.05 -1.02* .54 -.58 .78 .22 . 1 1 .22  Scale  IQ S c o r e 78 83 85 95 98 99 99 101 102 102 102 103 1 06 106 1.07 107 107 1 07 109 109 11 0 11 0 11 0 11 1 1 12 1 1 3 11 3 11 4 11 4 11 5 11 5 1 16 1 16 11 6 1 18 1 18 118 119 1 19 119 119  49  Results  of  42 -.46 43 .74 44 .58 45 .93 44 .89 47 .33 48 -.43 49 1 . 32 50 1 . 00 51 -.48 52 - 1 . 2 8 * 53 .04 54 . 1 2 55 .12 56 .68 57 -.36 58 - 2 . 1 6 * 59 -.05 60 - 1 . 4 9 * 61 -1 . 53 62 1 . 06 63 -.42 64 .94 65 -.98 66 .81 67 - 2 . 1 2 * 68 .59 *  T a b l e 13 the Regression A n a l y s i s Reported Standard E r r o r s of Estimate (continued) -1.46* -.30 -.38 .73 1.16 -.90 .21 .97 . 19 . 1 2 -1.54* -.43 -1.60* 1 .63 . 36 . 53 -2.45* -2.41* -1.34* .61 . 50 -1.72* .21 -1 . 5 5 * . 52 -.75 -.48  indicates  -.44 .28 .73 .76 1 . 34 -.19 .21 1 .80 . 1 9 -1.75 -1 . 6 6 .26 -1.81* .26 -.01 .35 -2.22* .96 -1.11* -2.24 .40 -.55 .95 -.48 -.11 -1 . 4 4 .88  in  -2.00* -.55 -.32 .36 . 1 5 .93 1 . 40 -.80 -1.14* -.90 -.57 .23 -2.78* -1.78* -.66 -.66 -1 . 3 2 * -.85 -3.42* -.95 .85 1 . 53 . 34 -1.67* .61 -3.81 .57  1 20 1 20 1 20 121 1 23 1 22 1 23 1 25 1 25 1 26 1 26 1 27 1 27 127 1 27 1 27 1 28 1 29 1 29 1 30 131 1 32 1 34 1 34 1 37 1 40 1 42  underachievement  H y p o t h e s i s One The  correlational  Performance  and  Mathematics, clusters  of  Written  coefficient between  Scale  IQ  Language  different  of A n a l y s i s . (r)  WPPSI  was u s e d Verbal,  from  between  scores  and G e n e r a l  the Woodcock-Johnson  significantly Method  Full  relationship  zero  and  in a group  Performance  of  moment  whether  and F u l l  first  the  Scale  Verbal, Reading,  achievement  Battery  product  to determine  the  Knowledge  Achievement  Pearson's  WPPSI  are  not  graders. correlation correlation  IQ s c o r e s a n d  50  the  Woodcock-Johnson  from  Battery  differed  significantly  zero. Discussion  coefficients scores  with  Johnson  of F i n d i n g s .  between the  highest  and G e n e r a l  Scale  IQ  and  coefficients and  of  measures  of  Knowledge  from past  studies  reading  investigation  were  (.69)  closely  Verbal,  (p  <  achievement.  are comparable  Scale  the  followed  IQ  Woodcock-  Table WPPSI  and F u l l  studies.  of  Full  Scale  Battery 15  IQ  correlation  with  the  IQ  differ  compares  IQ s c o r e s  The f i n d i n g s  Verbal  b y WPPSI  The  Achievement  to past  and F u l l  t h e WPPSI  Performance  correlating  correlation  sample.  (.67).  .01).  the  of  between  Knowledge  WPPSI  zero  clusters  for the entire  correlations  General  14 p r e s e n t s  Performance  achievement  Woodcock-Johnson  significantly results  Table  Verbal,  Battery  between  the  WPPSI  four  Achievement  The score  Achievement  the other  present  51  Table Correlation Full  Scale  Coefficients: IQ  Scores  Achievement  14 Verbal  with  Subtests  Reading  Math  and  Woodcock-Johnson  clusters  Achievement  IQ  the  Performance  N=102  Area  Written  Lang  G.  Knowledge  Verbal  .43*  .50*  .47*  .69*  Performance  .46*  ,49*  .47*  .47*  Full  .50*  .57*  .54*  .67*  Scale  *  p <  .05  52  Table  15  A C o m p a r i s o n o f WPPSI Achievement  Study  and Reading  White  & Jacobs,  Gray  Oral  Feshbach Gates  Test  Across  Verbal  1979  IQs and R e a d i n g Studies  IQ P e r f o r m a n c e  IQ  Full  Scale  .54**  .51**  .58**  .47**  .44**  . 38**  . 57**  .61**  .63**  .59  . 55**  . 43**  IQ  Reading et  a l 1975  MacGinite  Lieblich Israeli  & Shinar Objective  of  School  in  Reading  Plant  1975 Tests  Achievement  S o u t h e r n 1968  Stanford  **  Achievement  K a u f m a n 1973 Metropolitan Kroft,  .36* Achievement  P e r k s 1982  .43*  . 46*  .50*  Woodcock-Johnson Achievement  Battery  *  p < .05  **  p < .01  Note.  From  "The P r e d i c t i o n  f r o m WPPSI  scores  of  of F i r s t - G r a d e  Preschool  Children"  Reading by D.  Achievement R.  White  53  and  E.  Jacobs,  Hypothesis The grade  incidence  one  students  was  in  the  Schools.  1979,  j_6,  129.  Two:  Method Test  Psychology  of  of does  underachievement not  Analysis.  used  to  underachievement  exceed  The  Chi  the  a  group  of  15%. Square  determine  exceeded  among  if  expected  Goodness-of-Fit  the  incidence  number  of  of 15  percent. Discussion Table  of  17  indicate  rejected.  Twenty  underachievers. level  of  Findings. that percent  This  statistical  the  The null  results  hypothesis  of  the  sample  finding  was  significant  significance.  presented  were  should  identified at  the  in be as .05  54  Table Incidence  of  Underachievement  Study  Underachievers  16  Sample  Normal  There incidence  are or  (IQ  Method was  used  to  frequently  support  were  no  x  no  = 6.71  2  (p  of  significant  frequency  of  Superior  (IQ  80-109)  group  Analysis  determine in  any  Discussion 17  Total 68  <  .05)  Three  Intellectually Average  (N=68)  54  Results:  Hypothesis  the  & Overachievers  14  Test  in  the  of  one  first Chi  Bright graders  Square  among  (IQ (p  in  an  110-119) =  and  .05).  Goodness-of-Fit  underachievement  the  Test  occurs  more  group.  Findings  acceptance  across  120+),  whether  significant  underachievers  (p=.05)  underachievement  of  The  differences  of  The the  results null  differences  three  ability  presented hypothesis. in  the  groupings.  in  Table There  number  of  55  Table Incidence  of  17  Underachievement  across  Three  Ability  Groupings  Average  Bright  Superior  10  9  13  Underachiever  Test  Result:  Hypothesis  x  =  2  .81  are  no  relationship  scores  each  and  of  Woodcock-Johnson, Language  and (IQ  group  of  areas  the  to  Discussion indicated  that  Reading,  (IQ  there  The were  ability  be of  Scale  clusters  of  Mathematics, for  an  110-119)  and  appropriate  relationships  three  shown  achievement  Full  in  the IQ the  Written  Intellectually Average  (IQ  80-  used  to  graders.  Analysis  whether  WPPSI  Knowledge  Bright  first  correlational across  the  General  differences  between  namely,  120+),  of  Method determine  .05)  significant  correlational  109)  >  32  Four  There  Superior  (p  Total  significant between  significantly  there  was  a  An  was  differences  in  the  IQ  and  Achievement  for  the  Achievement  different  from  groupings  Findings  t-test  analysis  significant  zero. of  difference  the in  data the  56  correlational the p_  Average <  and  .05.  was  no  relationship Superior  between  three  ability  groupings  1.45,  p  null  Reading. Language to  > 1.64  and  support  null  IQ  the  t(.95)  ranges.  should  in  These be  of  equally  t(.95)  the  £  < .05  findings for  supported This  mixed  hypothesis  2.41,  that  there  across  and  both  =  that  Mathematics for  the  t(.95)  suggest  and  Written  finding  three,  distributed  =  in  correlational  Knowledge  rejected is  and Mathematics  indicated  = 7.25,  Knowledge.  results is  also  and G e n e r a l  hypothesis  General  underachievement ability  data  respectively.  hypothesis The  the  IQ  groupings,  difference  relationship  the  ability  Conversely,  significant  between  tends  namely,  that  throughout  the  57  Table Relationship of  Achievement  Ability  Grouping  Average  (IQ  between Across  Reading  85-109)  18  Full  Scale  three  IQ  Ability  Score  and  Groupings  Achievement  Area  Mathematics  Written  Lang  Area (n=l02)  Knowledge  .13  .57***  .024  .50**  .33*  .04  .17  .41*  .11  .27*  .20  .32*  N=3 1 Bright  (IQ  110-119)  N=30 SuperiordQ  120-144)  N = 41  * ** ***  p_ <  .05  p  .01  < p  <  Hypothesis There in  the  group  .001  Five are  no  incidence of  first  Method  of  statistically or  frequency  of  significant  sex  underachievement  differences among  a  graders. Analysis.  The  Chi  Square  Statistical  Test  58  of  Association  was  underachievement  occurred  Discussion Table There  19  of  support  were  used  no  more  between  Incidence  of  Result:  Table  20  underachievers was  equally  x  Table  19  2  represented  null in  the  in  Males  and  6  across  of  Females  Total 14  .05)  the  ability  in  incidence  8  >  girls.  hypothesis.  Females  (p  or  presented  Males  •= . 2 8  each  boys  whether  females.  Underachievement  illustrates in  the  differences and  in  results  of  males  Underachievers  Test  The  acceptance  significant  determine  frequently  Findings.  the  underachievement  to  number  of  male  and  female  grouping.  Underachievement  all  groupings.  ability  59  Table Incidence and  Ability  Very  Level  N  Superior  8  of  Females  Male  20  Underachievement across  Four  in  Males  Ability  Underachievers  Levels  Female  Underachievers  (130+) Superior  19  (120-129) Bright  21  (110-119) Average  20  (90-109)  Total  68  Hypothesis There Performance  mean  is or  of  no  in  significant  non-verbal group  of  IQ  first  Analysis.  Performance  groups  6  Six  Underachieving Method  8  scores  order  to  A of  difference score  in  between  the an  mean  WPPSI  Achieving  and  graders. t-test Achieving  determine  was  conducted  and whether  on  the  Underachieving they  were  60  significantly  different.  Discussion Table  21.  should  be  between  of  The  Findings data  The  indicates  accepted.  There  the  performance  Underachievers.  mean  results  was  no  that  are the  presented null  significant score  of  in  hypothesis difference  Achievers  and  61  Table Comparison  of  Mean  N  21  Performance  Mean  Scores  Performance  Achievers  54  114.83  Underachievers  14  121.93  Test  Result:  t  = .08  (p  >  (t-test)  Score  .05)  Summary Chapter descriptive  four  statistics  and c o r r e l a t i o n for  the  restatement data  analysis of  with  (sample,  coefficients)  regression  regression  the  began  the  analysis.  a  means,  used  equations. were  research  presentation  to  standard  build The  presented hypotheses  the  of  deviations parameters  results followed and  the  the  of by  results  the a of  62  CHAPTER The  final  sections. research and  V:  DISCUSSION,  chapter  The  first  findings.  research  limitations  of  The next  the study,  investigations.  Research  Findings  Hypothesis Verbal,  Reading,  not  clusters  and  divided  into  three  on a d i s c u s s i o n  of the  summarizes  final  Full  includes  Scale  from  for  relationships  Language  different  objectives  and s u g g e s t i o n s  General  future  and the  Knowledge  Achievement  zero  the  between  IQ s c o r e s  and  the Woodcock-Johnson  significantly  the  section  correlational  Written of  section  conclusions  The  is  focuses  The  Performance  Mathematics,  achievement are  One.  AND C O N C L U S I O N S  paper  section  research  WPPSI  this  hypotheses.  of  SUMMARY  Battery  i n a group of  first  graders Result.  The  correlations Achievement  between clusters  Discussion examined Primary  the scale  Achievement to  other  1979;  of  early  range  WPPSI were  IQ s c o r e s  significantly  correlations of  Battery. of  early  (WPPSI)  school  was  rejected.  and the  All  Woodcock-Johnson  different  from  reported  studies  the Wechsler and  The c o r r e l a t i o n s  the  have  P r e s c h o o l and  Woodcock-Johnson  obtained  achievement  zero.  were  (White  comparable &  Jacobs,  1975) .  Woodcock-Johnson school  No  between  Intelligence  measures  h a s two a d v a n t a g e s  achievement.  and accomodates  advantageous  hypothesis  and i m p l i c a t i o n s .  Feshbach, The  null  when  a  high  assessing  First,  the test  ceiling. the  over  early  This  other  covers is  school  measures  a wide age particularly  achievement  of  63  intellectually perform  several  particular  the  „ achievement.  WPPSI  tests  of  To  the extent  of  superior  Verbal  achieved  Scores  one o f  the early  would  their  on s p e c i a l  of  topics"  to obtain  correlations In  However, knowledge.  characteristics  in  for facts one  (Whitmore, of  the  correlations  general  memory  an i n d e x  In  Kaufman,  (.69).  knowledge  in  scholastic  1973;  intellectual  "remarkable  repertoire  seem u s e f u l  of  the highest  assess  age  (.59).  Knowledge  may  1980).  highest  Reading  found  that  is  range  their  and  achievement  expertise  or  more  1 9 8 0 , p.  this  and  aspect  65of  achievement. The  Woodcock-Johnson  be a v a l u a b l e  achievement with  Whitmore,  school  of  to  1947;  early  areas  their  chronological  IQ a n d G e n e r a l  children  children  their  broader  researcher  and an a m a z i n g  it  IQ  a  these  (Woo-Sam & Z i m m e r m a n ,  1975) h a v e  events  66),  (Terman,  studies  the  since  beyond  covers  Verbal  study  between few  Past  WPPSI  present  areas  test  Feshbach,  between  children  years  subject  addition,  1973;  superior  Achievement  instrument  of  superior  t h e WPPSI,  i t s high  for  assessing  children ceiling  Battery  due t o  and  therefore the  early  i t s high  broad  range  appears school  correlations of  content  areas. Hypothesis group  of  grade  Result. found  that  subject  two.  The i n c i d e n c e  one s t u d e n t s The N u l l  20% o f  areas,  Discussion  x  2  does  hypothesis  the sample  were  of  underachievement  among a  not exceed 15%. is  rejected.  underachieving  The  researcher  in at  least  two  provide  an  ( 6 5 ) = 6 . 7 1 , p_ < . 0 5 .  and i m p l i c a t i o n s .  These  findings  64  indication and  the  of  both  extent  Moreover,  the  McCuen  to  106).  alert  educators  A  their  is  own  to  the  Goldberg,  work  1958;  of  the  for  Shaw  the  the  grade  the  study  they  & McCuen,  1960;  There  no  enters the  the  &  underachieve  have  become  patterns"  Shaw  school"  problem  will  identification  researchers of  level.  of  to  of  early  begins  one  hypothesis  magnitude  remediation  "before  and  to  at  underachiever  several  and  underachievement  predisposition the  need  of  exists  support  when  As  critical  poor  it  knowledge  intervention  pattern  pattern  "the  present  underachievement. early  lend  that  is  (p.  the  which  results  (i960)  academically  when  of  stressed,  the  underachievement  too  well  adapted  (O'Shea,  1970,  Pringle,  1970;  p.  to  257,  Whitmore,  1980). Hypothesis differences  in  underachievement Bright  (IQ  graders  (p  three. the  =  Result  relative  among a n  110-119)  and  The  null  hypothesis  grouping,  ability  Discussion that  evidence incidence  of of  and the  among  studies  (IQ  or  significant frequency  Superior 80-109)  (IQ  group  of  120+), of  first  .05).  particular  known  incidence  Average  did  frequently  statistically  Intellectually  underachievement  suggests  are  the  x  2  incidence of  attempted present  underachievement  accepted.  occur  more  (65)  implications  students  have  not  was  = .81,  confirm  a  <  group  of  within  the  this  of a  .05.  intellectual  investigation in  p  literature  underachievement  superior to  incidence  frequently  Although of  The  occurs  abilities,  hypothesis. suggests  grade  more  one  that  no The the  students  65  is  not  associated  suggestion review  of  Lavin  of  and  the  failure  these  have  past  results  the  model  the  as  (Farquhar Archer,  superior the  need  and  namely,  four.  each  110-119)  for and  be  supported  for  effects  adoption for  Annesley,  no  Superior  The  (80-109) findings  for data  Written  group  indicated  Mathematics indicated Language  of  and  and  of  that  Pippert  General  &  1975).  Full  Scale  in IQ  Woodcock-Johnson, and  General  Bright  (IQ  graders. the  Reading, the  which  regression  (IQ120+),  first  These  differences  Language  that  the  1970;  WPPSI  clusters  Intellectually  which  underachievers  significant  between  may  linear  Rutter,  1959;  The  effect  researchers  al.,  the  artifact,  underachieve.  the  et  of  regression.  identifying  1963; D a v i s ,  achievement  end  to  past  of  select  preponderance  regression  to  of  are  of  degree  appears  method  the  the  their  to  statistical  a  Written  Average  the  the  Mathematics,  rejected  Conversely,  a  In  used  upper  to  the  There  the  the  consider  relationship  of  an  Result. should  the  Thorndike,  Reading,  Knowledge  for  that  due  conclusions  1964;  correlational  scores  to  student  standard  Hypothesis  be  magnified  & Payne, 1963;  at  consider  researchers  support  emphasized  the  to  incorrectly  intellectually  comment  supports  (1963).  procedures  identified may  finding  Thorndike  researchers  distribution  failure of  and  This  identification  underachievers  intelligence  ability.  (1965)  the  underachievers of  with  null t(.95)  null  hypothesis =  2.41.  hypothesis  Knowledge,  t(.95)  is =  1 .45. Discussion  and  implications.  These  findings  lend  further  66  support  to  the  results  underachievement Intellectually correlations lower  for  with  equal  occurred  Superior between  this  correlations  group.  or  the  of  first  and  However,  since  pattern,  five. or  that  might  achievement  ability within  they  were  a  If  group  expect  to  be  underachievers  the  is  three.  within  one  achievement  There  are  frequency  of the  uniformly  were  found  distribution,  the  each  g r o u p do  not  not  consistently  of  no  significant  sex  underachievement  differences  among a  group  graders. The  null  underachievement  females,  x  (65)  2  Discussion disagree  Gowan,  and  of  by  "the  greater  number  societal  attitudes  of  college  going  the  and are  problem  of  researchers  incidence males  more and  is  entrance  equally the  (Shaw,  to  investigation  of  may  females.  vulnerable notion  1961)  may  expected  that  should  to  the  and  present  (Shaw,  suggested  underachievers  Furthermore,  a male  results  has  expectations now  in  underachievers  current  male  The  frequency  The  past  male that  of  supported.  equal  (1964) of  is  .05.  fact  of  and males  primarily  those  number  failure  achievement.  >  Gowan  increased  The  p  with  implications.  with  disproportionate influenced  hypothesis  occurred  = .28,  1964).  females  ability  and  incidence  299).  then  between  Results.  sense  students,  IQ  hypothesis  low.  in  study  for  frequently  throughout  Hypothesis  of  more  frequency  form a c o n s i s t e n t high  obtained  of  1961;  that be  the partly in  the  professions  (p.  to  boys  identify  reflect It the  may  a  changing be  that  pressures  of  underachievement  is  be  in  reconsidered  67  light  of  the  results  Hypothesis mean  WPPSI  Achieving  and  t  Discussion Clarke  failed  to  might  may  be  sample the  &  IQ  Bessemer,  scores  a of  is  score  in  the  between  an  graders.  accepted.  in  the  There  mean  group  Contrary the  significant  were  no  Performance  IQ  of  to  grade  the  one  replicate  by  the  use  of  to  particular different  of  investigator  difference and  failure  findings  current  underachieving  influenced the  first  (1962),  the  as  of  implications.  that  well  group  IQ  underachieving  speculate  as  non-verbal  difference  p_ > . 0 5 .  discover  Performance One  and  significant  differences  and  = .08,  no  hypothesis  significant  (65)  is  or  null  achieving  students,  Norman,  There  Underachieving The  statistically of  six.  Performance  Result.  scores  presented.  between  achieving  students.  this  characteristics instruments  the  finding of  to  each  conduct  research.  Summary The  current  dissertation  project  Academically Columbia  Able  in  be  identified  what  extent  regression  does  as the  analysis the  researchers.  major To  this  as  model  the  findings end,  the  a  the  problem  and  In  Perks'  doctoral  Identification  Children"  whether  early  up  "The  progress).  investigated  could  followed  entitled  Kindergarten  dissertation  researcher  replicate  investigation  (University  the  follow-up  pattern first  exist?  of  and  researcher  the  study  if  addition,  investigator confirm  British the  underachievement  grade In  of  of  to  to  using  attempted  hypothesis  sought  so  of  a to  past  replicate  68  whether  a  disproportionate  underachievers demonstrate adequately the  would  a  more  achieving that  frequently  relative  to their  hypothesis,  the  whether  IQ  score  The r e s e a r c h e r  incidence of  males  of  and  female  underachievers  relative  attempted  to  to  confirm  underachievement  superior  their  occurs  intellectual  ability  peers. Six  followed  null  hypotheses  were  by i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g  tested.  statistical  Each  finding  is  below.  1.  The  Performance  clusters  of  correlational  and  Mathematics,  (Rejected, 2.  Full  Written  IQ  Language  different  from  between  scores  and  and General  the  achievement  Battery  in a group  of  Verbal, Reading,  Knowledge  Achievement  zero  WPPSI  first  are  not  graders.  p < .05).  one s t u d e n t s There  incidence  or  of  does  are  underachievement  not exceed  Superior  (80-109)  15%.  no s i g n i f i c a n t  frequency  Intellectually Average  Scale  The i n c i d e n c e  3.  relationships  the Woodcock-Johnson  significantly  grade  peers.  of  and  non-verbal  among c h i l d r e n  Hypotheses.  listed  be i d e n t i f i e d  higher  hypothesis  number  group  of  are  no  of (IQ  (Rejected,  differences  a  Bright  graders  group  in the  (IQ  (p = . 0 5 )  of  p < .05).  underachievement 120+),  first  among  relative  among  an  110-119) a n d (Accepted,  p >  .05) . 4.  There  correlational and  each  namely,  of  significant  relationship  between  the achievement  clusters  Reading,  Mathematics,  differences  WPPSI of  Written  Full  the  Scale  in IQ  the scores  Woodcock-Johnson,  Language  and  General  69  Knowledge  for  110-119)  and  (Partially 5.  intellectually  Average  Rejected, There  incidence first  an  or  no  is  or  Underachieving  no  Partially  of  (Supported,  120+), of  sex  p_ <  non-verbal  p  (IQ  graders.  <  .05).  differences  in  among a  the  group  of  .05). difference  IQ  first  Bright  first  Accepted,  underachievement  significant  group of  (IQ  group  significant  frequency  There  Performance  80-109)  p_ > . 0 5 ,  are  graders. 6.  (IQ  Superior  score  in  the  between  graders.  an  mean  WPPSI  Achieving  (Supported,  p  <  and  .05).  Conclusions Major confirmed of  the  findings. the  Moreover,  underachieving To findings  large  of  past  children  high  to  evident  children  two  subject  extent,  the  evidence  agreed  a male  to  Shaw's  as  22)  were  as  has  the  onset  the  first  found  to  be  challenges  the  areas. presented  is  (p.  that  early  studied  (1961)  finding  problem"  of  control  (p.  perhaps  discover  supports  ability  group"  is  researcher  investigators  least  striking  investigator  fail  past  the  assertion  that was  that  "the  underachievement  not  supported  by  is the  investigation.  More  finding  the  research.  universally  current  in  at  of  study,  pattern  20 % o f  in  a  predominantly  this  suggestions  underachievement  grade.  most  In  superior  ability (1965)  for  effects  the be  the  higher  Lavin's  will 27).  a  is  failure  incidence relative  assertion of  of  speculate  the  to  their  that  in  in  that  present  underachievement  regression  over-represented  One m i g h t  of  peers.  studies  "students the  the  This which  of  very  underachiever  disproportionate  70  number  of  underachievers  students  is  of  design  faulty  due  in  large  and  underachievers.  The  underachievement  in  an  intellectually  measure  selection present  equally  to  a  superior  statistical  procedures  investigator  represented  artifact  used  found  group  to  the  of born  identify  incidence  throughout  the  of  ability  distribut ion. Limitations sample  was  of  restricted  volunteer  basis.  including  children  valued  and  neutral  parents 22).  of  One  or  children  larger  come  their  to  biased  where  from  the  and  respect  to  value  that  to  in  who  this  is  (1961),  parents  education  tend  have to  while  consented  (p.  to  project  be the  positively"  research  a  towards  Shaw  values  education  on  achievement  the  their  parents  children  sample  to  where  research  participate  academic  homes  ...  with  tend  agreed  According  achievers  negative  of  circumstances,  would  have  assess  the  (1965)  highly  limited  analyze girls  have  current  the value  been  Perks'  entire  included  incidence  of  in  the  sample  follow-up  underachievement  of  160  study  in  within  a  population.  more  the  to  speculate  ideal  Lavin are  may  who  The  positively.  Under  to  subjects  families  achievers  participation  order  from  than  might  education  to  This  tend  education  either  investigation.  encouraged.  "underachievers less  the  the  suggests  correlated  sample  for  size,  correlations  separately.  that  females  the  between  According  to  "ability  than  current IQ  and  Lavin  and  school  for  performance  males."  Due  to  investigator  did  not  boys  and  achievement  (ibid),  "this  for  means  that  71  when  males  and  females  magnitude  of  will  accurately  not  separately" If larger,  sex,  correlations  (p.  the  incidence In  of  a  serve and  comments  pattern  may  motor  perception,  mastery  of  caused  subtle  data  by  whose  the  performance  for  the  sexes  The  current  intelligence  is  power  nonintellective .  each  of  the  separately  four  for  accuracy  identifying  the  beginning  delays  in  in  in  each This the  underachievers, of  the  the  which the  may  may  of  visual-  dominance.  "These  interfere  primary  that  underachievement  development and  Whitmore  grades  are  contribute  with  the  the  most  to  early  184). to  distinguish delays  maturational  in  between  the  development  development  is  child  who  from  the  commensurate  age.  used  only of  in  were  underachievers.  investigation was  investigation  analyses.  "gifted"  to-  chronological  predictive  analysis,  regression  for  (p.  his  (IQ)  the  deficits,  fail  underachiever  of  level  calculated  eight  difficulties  experiences"  variable  been  of  skills  due  one  in  school  current  directionality  underachieves  with  and  true  the  increase  that  basic  These  ability  equations  female  maturational  common a n d failure  to  programme  be  in  have  total  (1980)  physical,  size  would  male  her  separated  the  regression  areas  would  between  reflect  sample  yielding  approach  not  44).  separate  achievement  are  one the  variables  to  was  further  predict  limited  achievement.  in  that  The  variable  factor  influencing  achievement.  study  would  been  such  as  have  social,  only  increased  The if  emotional,  72  motivational prediction  and  of  for  future  investigators  the  children  of  the  in  this  to study  underachievement  and m o t i v a t i o n a l  addition,  it  would  operate  for  Future  the  It  for  would of  relative  distributed whether  be  from  of  ability  whether in  used  in  same  of  the  the  this in  the  In  factors  different  as  of  programmes  underachievers  or for  of and  each.  investigator order  to  to  to  follow  whether  remains  equally  over  predominate  underachieve becomes school  in  more  the  assess  investigators  successive  social,  responsible  distribution  begins  to  of  stability  early  are  underachievement  underachievement in  the  several  identified  Future  the  for  1965).  ability  level.  males  develop  to  value  development  whether  factors  children  continue  severity  in  of  underachievement.  examine  (Lavin, may  the  assess  of  to  be  determine  to  the  interest  throughout  areas  and  effectiveness  incidence  students  order  interest  children  these  whether  worsens  to  females  the  would  in  correlates  underachievement  particular  or  in  It  following  underachievement  differential  achievement  were  continue  investigators  intervention  the  of  differently  underachievement  assess  be  research.  pattern  emotional  responsible  characteristics  achievement.  Suggestions future  familial  time within  might the  or a  examine  same  subject  widespread  and  years.  Summary Chapter  five  findings  and  chapter  continued  began  examined  with  the  with  a  discussion  implications a  summary  of  of the  of  each research  the  research  finding.  The  investigation  73  and  concluded  investigation  with and  a  discussion  suggestions  for  of  the  future  limitations research.  of  the  74  REFERENCES A n n e s l e y , F., Odhner, F., Madoff, E., & C h a n s k y , N. the first grade underachiever. J o u r n a l of Research, 1970,.63, 459-462. Asbury, C. Selected underachievement in Educational Research, Barrett, H. Children. 194.  0.  Birch, J. W., Educational Bush,  Identifying Educational  factors influencing over and young s c h o o l - a g e c h i l d r e n . Review of 1974, 4 4 ( 4 ) , 409-427.  An Intensive Study of Thirty-two Gifted P e r s o n n e l and G u i d a n c e J o u r n a l , 1 9 5 7 , 3 6 , 192& Reynolds, M. C. Research, 1 9 6 3 , 3_3 (1 ) ,  W. J., & Mattson, B. underachievers. J o u r n a l of 6(4), 251-256.  The Gifted: 83-98.  Review  of  D. Wise Test p a t t e r n s and Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1973,  Davis, W. E. Problem solving performance of over underachievers. (Doctoral dissertation, University Denver, 1959).  and of  D'Heurle, E. A., Mellinger, J. C , Haggard, E. A. Personality, intellectual and achievement patterns in gifted children. P s y c h o l o g y M o n o g r a p h , 1 9 5 9 , 7_3 ( 1 3 ) , 1-28. Dulles, R. J. Educational  The Myth of Sociology, 1961,  Farquhar, W. W., comparison of overachievers. 874-884.  Underachievement. 35(3), 121-122.  Journal  & Payne, D. A. A classification techniques used in selecting under P e r s o n n e l and Guidance J o u r n a l , 1964,  of and and 42,  Feshbach, S., Adelman, H., & Fuller, W. The p r e d i c t i o n of r e a d i n g and r e l a t e d academic p r o b l e m s . Paper p r e s e n t e d at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, 1975. Fox,  A. E. Gifted  K i n d e r g a r t e n : Forgotten year Child Quarterly, 1971, 43-49.  Gallagher, J. J., & L u c i t o , L. g i f t e d compared with average Children, 1961, 27, 479-482.  J. and  for  the  gifted?  Intellectual retarded.  Gallagher, James, J. Characteristics of g i f t e d r e s e a r c h summary, 1966. In W. B. Barbe Renzulli (Eds.), P s y c h o l o g y and E d u c a t i o n of New Y o r k : I r v i n g t o n P u b l i s h e r s I n c . , 1975.  The  p a t t e r n s of Exceptional  children. A & J. S. the G i f t e d .  75  G o l d b e r g , M. L. Recent r e s e a r c h C o l l e g e R e c o r d , 1958, 6 0 , p. Gowan, J. C , the A b l e s t . 1 964.  & Demos, G . Springfield,  on the 150-163.  talented.  Teachers  D. The Education and Guidance of Illinois: Charles C. Thomas,  Johnson, H. G. D o e s t h e g i f t e d c h i l d h a v e a l o w AQ? of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 1 9 4 2 , 3_6(2), 9 1 - 9 9 .  Journal  Kaufman, A. S. Comparison of the WPPSI, Stanford-Binet and McCarthy Scales as p r e d i c t o r s of f i r s t grade achievement. P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1973, 36( >' 67-73. 1  Kirk,  R. E. Introductory Company, 1978.  Statistics.  Brooks/Cole  Publishing  Krebs, E. G. The Wechsler Preschool and Primary S c a l e of I n t e l l i g e n c e and p r e d i c t i o n of reading achievement in f i r s t grade. (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Rutgers State University) Ann Arbor, Mich: University M i c r o f i l m s , 1969. No. 703361 . Krippner, S., & Herald, c. academically talented. 8, 12-20. Lavin, D. E. York: Russel  Reading disabilities among the The G i f t e d C h i l d Q u a r t e r l y , 1964,  The P r e d i c t i o n of Academic Sage F o u n d a t i o n , 1 9 6 5 .  Performance.  New  L i e b l i c h , A . , & S h i n a r , M. T h e P r e d i c t i v e V a l i d i t y o f t h e WPPSI with Israeli children. E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 1975, 35(2), 473-475. Ministry of Economic Development. Index, 1978, 323-326.  British  Columbia  Regional  Moore, W. D., Hahn, W. G., Brentnall, L. D. Academic achievement of g i f t e d c h i l d r e n : A comparative approach. E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 1978, 618-619. Newland, New  E. T. The G i f t e d i n S o c i o e d u c a t i o n a l J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1976.  Perspective.  N o r m a n , R. D . , C l a r k , B. P . , B e s s e m e r , D. W. Age, sex, I.Q. and achievement patterns in achieving and nonachieving gifted children. E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n , 1962, 116-123. Oldridge, 0. A., & Allison, Preschool and Primary Scale of E d u c a t i o n a l Measurement, O'Shea, A. school  E. E. Review of the Wechsler o f I n t e l l i g e n c e (WPPSI) J o u r n a l 1 9 6 8 , 5, 3 4 7 - 3 4 8 .  Low a c h i e v e m e n t s y n d r o m e among bright junior high boys. The J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1970,  76  63(6)  256-262.  P e r k s , B. A. Children.  Identification of A c a d e m i c a l l y - A b l e Kindergarten Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n Research Proposal, 1 9 8 1 .  Pippert, R., & A r c h e r , S. N. A comparison of classifying underachievers with respect criteria. P e r s o n n e l and Guidance J o u r n a l , 791 .  two m e t h o d s o f to selected 1 9 6 3 , 4J_, 7 8 8 -  Powers, S. M. The v a l i d i t y of t h e Vane Kindergarten Test in predicting achievement in k i n d e r g a r t e n and f i r s t grade. E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 1 9 7 4 , 3_4, 1 0 0 3 1 007. P o w e r s , S. M. The Vane K i n d e r g a r t e n T e s t : Temporal stability and a b i l i t y t o p r e d i c t b e h a v i o u r a l c r i t e r i a . Psychology in the S c h o o l s , 1 9 7 7 , _ U , p. 3 4 - 6 . Pringle, M. operation  L. Able Misf i t s . The in C h i l d Care, 1970.  National  Bureau  for Co-  R e l l a s , A. T h e u s e o f t h e WPPSI i n t h e e a r l y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of gifted students. C a l i f o r n i a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 1 9 6 9 , 2 0 , 117-119. R u s c h i v a l , L. M . , & Way, G . J. T h e WPPSI and the StanfordBinet: A validity and reliability study using gifted preschool children. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 1971, 37(1). Rutter,  M.  Helping  Troubled Children.  New Y o r k :  Sattler, J . M. Assessment of C h i l d r e n ' s S a u n d e r s Company, 1 9 7 4 .  Penguin, 1 9 7 5 .  Intelligence.  W.  B.  Scherr, S. S . , P a s e w a r k , R. A . , & S a w y e r , R. N. Relationship of the Vane Kindergarten Test and Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1 9 7 3 , 2_9(4), 466-468. Shaw,  M. C , & McCuen, underachievement in Educational Psychology,  J. T. The onset bright children. 1 9 6 0 , 5J_, 1 0 3 - 1 0 8 .  of  academic J o u r n a l of  Shaw,  M. C. Definition and identification of academic underachievement. In L. Miller (Ed.), Guidance f o r the underachiever with superior a b i l i t y . U.S. Department of H e a l t h , Education and W e l f a r e , 1961 (Monograph).  Tannenbaum, A. A backward and forward glance at the g i f t e d . In W. B. Barbe & J . S. Renzulli (Eds.), Psychology and Education of the G i f t e d . New Y o r k : Irvington Publishers Inc., 1975.  77  Terman, L. Press,  M. G e n e t i c S t u d i e s of G e n i u s . Stanford University, 1930.  Stanford  Univ.  Terman, L. M. The d i s c o v e r y and e n c o u r a g e m e n t of e x c e p t i o n a l talent. I n W. B. Barbe & J. S. Renzulli (Eds.), P s y c h o l o g y and E d u c a t i o n of the G i f t e d . New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., 1975. Terman, L. M., Oden M. H. Stanford: Stanford University  The G i f t e d Press, 1947.  Child  Grows  Up.  Thorndike, R. L. The c o n c e p t s of o v e r - and u n d e r a c h i e v e m e n t . Bureau of Teachers College Publications. New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1963 ( M o n o g r a p h ) . Tiegland, J. J . , W i n k l e r , R. C , M u n g e r , P. F., & Kranzler, G. D. Some concomitants of underachievement at the elementary school level. P e r s o n n e l and G u i d a n c e Journal, 1966, 44, 950-955. T o r r a n c e , P. E. P. Vane,  E d u c a t i o n and the c r e a t i v e Dutton & C o . , 1967.  potential.  J. R. The Vane K i n d e r g a r t e n T e s t . C l i n i c a l Psychology Publishing Co. Inc.,  Wechsler, D. Intelligence  New  Brandon, 1968.  York:  Vermont:  The W e c h s l e r P r e s c h o o l and P r i m a r y S c a l e of Manual. The P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . 1967.  White, D. R. & Jacobs, E. The p r e d i c t i o n of f i r s t grade reading achievement from WPPSI scores of preschool children. P s y c h o l o g y i n t h e S c h o o l s , 1 9 7 9 , J _ 6 ( 2 ) 189-192. Whitmore, J. R. Boston: Allyn  Giftedness, Conflict and Bacon I n c . , 1980.  and  Underachievement.  Woodcock, R. W. Development and standardization Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. T e a c h i n g R e s o u r c e s C o r p o r a t i o n , 1978.  of the Manual.  Ysseldyke, J . E., A l g o z z i n e , B., Shinn, M. Validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery for Learning Disabled Youngsters. Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s Quarterly, 4, 1 981 . Zimmerman, I. L., & Woo-Sam, J . The u t i l i t y of P r e s c h o o l and P r i m a r y S c a l e of I n t e l l i g e n c e i n school. J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1970,  the Wechsler the public 26, 472.  


Citation Scheme:


Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
France 5 0
United States 4 0
Japan 3 0
China 1 2
City Views Downloads
Unknown 5 0
Tokyo 3 0
Ashburn 3 0
Shenzhen 1 2
Seattle 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items