An Evaluation (and Vindication?) of Lewis Terman: What the Father of Gifted Education Can Teach the 21st Century

Warne, Russell T.

doi:10.1177/0016986218799433

Cited by 25 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 117 publications

(168 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other tasks often are capable of measuring intelligence, such as executive functioning tasks (Brydges, Reid, Fox, & Anderson, 2012), but these rarely find a place on the Wechsler or Stanford-Binet tests. Although we admire the work of the early pioneers of intelligence testing (Warne, 2019;Warne, Burton, Gibbons, & Melendez, 2019), we believe that modern test revisers and creators would benefit from examining the work of modern cognitive psychologists for inspiration in creating new test formats.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First publication of subtests in the Stanford-Binet 5, WAIS-IV, WISC-V, and WPPSI-IV

Gibbons

Warne

2019

Intelligence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we describe the origins of the subtests that appear on the modern Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5), Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-IV), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V), and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). We found that the majority of these subtest formats were first created in 1908 or earlier and that only three have been created since 1980. We discuss the implications of this findings, which are that (1) many subtests have lengthy research histories that support their use in measuring intelligence; (2) many subtests have formats that predate modern theories of test creation, cognitive psychology, and intelligence; and (3) the history of many subtests is more complex than psychologists probably realize.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

First publication of subtests in the Stanford-Binet 5, WAIS-IV, WISC-V, and WPPSI-IV

Gibbons

Warne

2019

Intelligence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gould grossly misrepresented the history of testing (Snyderman & Herrnstein, 1983;Warne, Burton, Gibbons, & Melendez, 2019), and later scholarly re-assessments of Terman's work have been much more nuanced (e.g., Jolly, 2008;Milton, 2000;Warne, 2019;Winkler & Jolly, 2014).…”

Section: Suggestions For Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While it is true that Pearson was a eugenicist (Bellhouse, 2009) and that the correlation coefficient was developed to further his study of heredity (Stigler, 1986), this does not make the correlation coefficient inappropriate for scholarly use. Subscribing to the genetic fallacy in gifted education would make valuable ideas as grade skipping, curriculum enrichment, and longitudinal studies off limits because advocates of these ideas also happened to endorse RECONCILING GIFTED EDUCATION 28 eugenic ideas (Warne, 2019). The only benefit to banning these tools would be to repress the necessary but uncomfortable discussions about the influence of the past and its presence in modern theory and practice.…”

Section: Suggestions For Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling Contemporary Gifted Education with Its Foundations

Jolly¹,

Rt²

2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gifted education in the 21st century is in a state of tension regarding its past. Many early pioneers of the field held scientific and social views that are out of step with modern theory in gifted education. Yet, many of these people's work is foundational to gifted education practice in the 21st century schools. Viewpoints of how to navigate this past while maintaining allegiance to modern theory include disowning that past, ignoring it, and building upon it. In this paper, we explore (a) the emergence of gifted education as a field, (b) the early history of gifted education and how it impacts the field today, and (c) suggestions for navigating the tension between the past and the present in gifted education. Though gifted education is over one hundred years old, its early history is still relevant and provides theoretical and practical insights in the form of groundbreaking research, theoretical insights, and cautionary tales.Many areas of applied psychology are the result of scientific attempts to solve a social problem. Drawing on the successes of the applied physical and biological sciences in addressing the concerns of society, applied psychology has the goal of using scientific methods and knowledge about human psychology to better manage social problems, reduce the frequency of unfavorable social outcomes for people, and improve the functioning of individuals. Some areas of applied psychology have seen great success in achieving practitioners' social goals, such as the use of applied behavior analysis, which is an outgrowth of behaviorist psychology. Other fields have been less successful, such as social psychology, which has experienced numerous failed replication attempts in recent years (e.g., Camerer et al., 2018; Open Science Collaboration, 2015), which calls into question whether subtle changes to people's environment can effectively alter human behavior.Gifted education is a field of applied psychology that-like other applied areas-is the product of applying scientific theories, knowledge, and methods to real-world problems. Unlike many areas of psychology, though, education is, by definition, a social enterprise that happens at the individual and group levels. As such, gifted education is bound up within societal contexts and concerns in a way that some other applied psychology fields are not. Consequently, the research, findings, and advances in theory of gifted education cannot be divorced from the social context that they are in some other fields of applied psychology. As society moves away from context in which the original research was conducted, the value of research rooted in past ideals and concerns may come under scrutiny. Yet, science is a cumulative enterprise, and it is not always feasible to distance, in this case, the applied psychology practice of gifted education from RECONCILING GIFTED EDUCATION 4 earlier ideas because current practices will have some grounding in past knowledge-and therefore past contexts. This creates a tension when later generations have ethical and moral st...

show abstract

“…The data from the study still continue to produce findings that are published in scholarly journals (e.g., Gensowski, 2018;Martin et al, 2007;Warne & Liu, 2017). In the years since the study began, a consensus has formed that it is an impressive project that advanced knowledge in psychology and education (Friedman & Martin, 2011;Greenberg, 1955;Minton, 1988;Warne, 2019;Winkler & Jolly, 2014). The Genetic Studies of Genius was vitally important in providing evidence that IQ scores were correlated both with success in the schoolhouse and with life outcomes in adulthood.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Low Base Rates and a High IQ Selection Threshold Prevented Terman from Identifying Future Nobelists Lewis Terman's landmark longitudinal study of 1,528 high-IQ children, the Genetic Studies of Genius, is one of the most important studies in the history of psychology. It was one of the first longitudinal studies, and it provided strong evidence for the validity of intelligence test scores as predictors of academic and non-academic life outcomes (Warne, 2019). The data from the study still continue to produce findings that are published in scholarly journals (e.g., Gensowski, 2018;Martin et al, 2007;Warne & Liu, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

Low base rates and a high IQ selection threshold prevented Terman from identifying future Nobelists

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the accomplishments of the 1,528 subjects of the Genetic Studies of Genius are impressive, they do not represent the pinnacle of human achievement. Since the early 1990s, commentators have criticized the study because two future Nobelists-William Shockley and Luis Alvarez-were among the candidates screened for the study; but they were rejected because their IQ scores were too low. Critics see this as a flaw of Terman's methodology and/or intelligence testing. This study simulates the Terman's sampling procedure to estimate the probability that Terman would have selected one or both future Nobelists from a population of 168,000 candidates. Using simulations, we created a model that reflected the reliability of the IQ scores used to select individuals for the Genetic Studies of Genius and the relationship between IQ and Nobelist status. Results showed that it was unlikely for Terman to identify children who would later earn Nobel prizes, mostly because of the low base rate of earning a Nobel and the high minimum IQ needed to be selected for Terman's study. Changes to the methodology that would have been required to select one or both Nobelists were not practical. Therefore, future Nobelists' absence from the Genetic Studies of Genius sample is not a fatal flaw of intelligence testing or Terman's study. Instead, predicting high levels of eminence requires measuring a variety of relevant cognitive and non-cognitive variables. A preprint version of this paper is available at https://psyarxiv.com/g4x6r/. Simulation code and results and reliability generalization information are available at https://osf.io/3xfe8/.

show abstract

An Evaluation (and Vindication?) of Lewis Terman: What the Father of Gifted Education Can Teach the 21st Century

Cited by 25 publications

References 117 publications

First publication of subtests in the Stanford-Binet 5, WAIS-IV, WISC-V, and WPPSI-IV

First publication of subtests in the Stanford-Binet 5, WAIS-IV, WISC-V, and WPPSI-IV

Reconciling Contemporary Gifted Education with Its Foundations

Low base rates and a high IQ selection threshold prevented Terman from identifying future Nobelists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About