Assessing intellectual potential in Tanzanian children in poor areas of Dar es Salaam

Abstract

The research set out in this paper attempts to identify whether one of three conventional IQ tests is more capable of identifying intellectual potential amongst poor children in Dar es Salaam. To this end 1857 children from 17 government schools in poor districts of Dar es Salaam were asked to complete a questionnaire and undertake a range of tests. The study included teacher, peer and self-nomination. It has been noted that static testing may not fully elicit the abilities of African children. It has been suggested that dynamic testing might provide a more fair and equitable means of assessment. Therefore 101 students took part in a control and intervention group in order to investigate. The findings show a significant correlation between IQ test scores and other test outcomes. Those with larger families and older children perform less well on IQ tests. Peer ability and selfconfidence positively influence test scores.

A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: Exploring Its Validity Evidence and Effectiveness in Equitably Identifying Gifted Students

“…For instance, Lewis et al (2007) included intelligence test and achievement test results: Thus, we decided to allocate the study randomly to any one category because the samples are dependent. Five studies in total (Humble et al, 2018; Lewis et al, 2007; Lindsey, 2013; Naglieri, 2003; Naglieri, 2011) had multiple results from different measurement categories, and they were randomly assigned to one category. Studies that used the same or different measures with different samples within the study were coded as having different effect sizes because they are independent.…”

“…When Naglieri was the author of the studies, the effect size was .58 (CI [0.50, 0.88], SE = .07); whereas when others authored the studies, the effect size was .32 (CI [0.24, 0.39], SE = .04). Balboni et al (2010) .50 0.41 0.59 Botella et al (2015) .04 −0.05 0.13 Bracken and Brown (2008) .35 0.26 0.45 Edmonds (2016) .56 0.43 0.69 Esquierdo (2006) .28 0.21 0.35 Giessman et al (2013) .20 0.17 0.24 Giessman et al (2013) .20 0.15 0.26 Giessman et al (2013) .10 −0.02 0.22 Giessman et al (2013) −.05 −0.16 0.06 Giessman et al (2013) .02 −0.35 0.40 Giessman et al (2013) .09 −0.71 0.89 Giessman et al (2013) .13 0.02 0.24 Humble et al (2018) .93 0.88 0.97 Lewis et al (2007) .58 0.43 0.72 Lindsey (2013) .16 0.10 0.22 Lohman et al (2008) .39 −0.13 0.92 Lohman et al (2008) .38 0.17 0.59 Lohman et al (2008) .38 0.20 0.57 Lohman et al (2008) .33 0.12 0.54 Lohman et al (2008) .31 0.14 0.48 Lohman et al (2008) .36 0.18 0.54 Lohman et al (2008) .14 −0.06 0.34 Lohman et al (2008) .40 −0.03 0.83 Lohman et al (2008) .39 0.18 0.60 Lohman et al (2008) .44 0.21 0.67 Lohman et al (2008) .33 0.10 0.55 Lohman et al (2008) .34 0.08 0.61 Lohman et al (2008) .34 0.01 0.67 Lohman et al (2008) .26 −0.09 0.61 Mann (2005) .31 −0.26 0.87 Mann (2008) .09 −0.40 0.58 Mann (2008) −.12 −1.10 0.86 Martin (1996) .92 0.86 0.99 Naglieri and Ronning (2000) .58 0.57 0.59 Naglieri (2003) 1.04 0.72 1.37 Naglieri (2003) .74 0.45 1.03…”

Rethinking Gifted Education in Tanzania: Toward Its Development in the Country

“…In another study, Humble et al (2018) investigated whether one of three conventional IQ tests is more capable of identifying intellectual potential among poor children in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The findings demonstrated that the use of multiple ways of identifying intellectual abilities may be a more useful approach in identifying the children’s intellectual potential than the use of static testing.…”

Towards a Model of Valued Human Cognitive Abilities: An African Perspective Based on a Systematic Review

“…Apart from lying outside of the timeframe for the literature search (1990-2020), Serpell (1989) synthesized evidence from these studies, making it unnecessary to include them in another synthesis. Again, studies by Jukes et al (2018), Neto et al (2009), and Humble et al (2018) were also excluded. This is because Jukes et al (2018) started with an a priori theory of implicit theory of intelligence based on the previous studies (e.g., : Serpell, 1993;Grigorenko et al, 2001) whereas Neto et al (2009) employed Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences as the theoretical framework.…”

“…This is because Jukes et al (2018) started with an a priori theory of implicit theory of intelligence based on the previous studies (e.g., : Serpell, 1993;Grigorenko et al, 2001) whereas Neto et al (2009) employed Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences as the theoretical framework. On the other hand, Humble et al (2018) also sought to identify the most efficient conventional IQ test capable of identifying intellectual potential; they evaluated the Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices Plus Version (SPM), the Matrix Reasoning test from the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-Second Edition (WASI-II) and the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability test (NNAT2). Thus, they also cast their study within an existing theoretical framework in their ability to identify intellectual potential among poor children in Dar es Salaam.…”