Instrument Repository

The TOF was developed in the late 1970s to evaluate the teachers of a Saturday enrichment program (Feldhusen & Hansen, 1987). This as well as other university-based enrichment programs are specifically designed for gifted and talented students. More recently, the TOF has also been used to evaluate teachers as they complete their gifted education practicum experience in the process of earning an instructional license in high-ability education.

The TOF has also been made available nationally to teachers and administrators for the past 25 years, but no formal data were collected on this use of the TOF. Within this one institution’s enrichment programs alone, the TOF has been completed on thousands of teachers over the past 25 years.

Resources 

• Peters, S. J., & Gates, J. C. (2010). The Teacher Observation Form: Revisions and Updates. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 179-188.
• Wu. J., Jen, E. Y., & Fugate, C. M. (2014, April). Tell us about yourself: The process of developing the Teacher Interview Protocol. Paper presented at 2014 Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, PA.
• Wu, J., Yang, Y. & Jen, E. Y. (2012, November). Examining students’ classroom perceptions in a university-based residential program. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Convention of the National Association for Gifted Children. Denver, CO.
• Jen, E. Y., Wu, J., Yang, Y., & Gentry, M. (2011, November). Teacher instructional quality in a university-based enrichment program: Lessons learned from the observers’ perspective. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Convention of the National Association for Gifted Children. New Orleans, LA.

Teacher Interview Protocol (TIP) is an 11-question, research-based interview protocol using the objectives and descriptors of the Teacher Observation Form-Revised (TOF-R) developed at Purdue University. It was used to make hiring decisions for teachers in different PreK-12 gifted enrichment programs. Hiring decisions were based on TIP scores, with a mean score of 3.5 or greater out of 5.0 resulting in an employment offer. Detailed instructions for using TIP can be found in the protocol.

Resources 

• Wu. J., Jen, E. Y., & Fugate, C. M. (2014, April). Tell us about yourself: The process of developing the Teacher Interview Protocol. Paper presented at 2014 Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, PA.

The semi-structured Counselor Observation Form (COF), used in the GERI Summer Residential program, assesses three primary counseling behaviors or criteria and related descriptors. The response scale for the three criteria was a 7point Likert-type scale from excellent (7) to unacceptable (1). Evaluators also checked the descriptors that were observed to support their rating, providing narrative comments when appropriate. Finally, the evaluators award an overall rating from “Is exemplary” to “Does not meet requirements,” and provided narrative description to justify their rating.

Although the COF is self-explanatory and easy to use, an evaluator with counseling training or experience of leading small group is recommended. GERI administrative staff members utilized the COF to facilitate formal and uniform collection of observational data from the small-group affective curriculum model delivered by the camp counselors in the Summer Residential program. Each camp counselor was observed once from 50 minutes to one hour. during small group discussions. Evaluators did not participate in the small groups’ sessions but sat nearby to observe and to complete the COF. This approach allowed the GERI staff members to observe subtle shifts in group dynamics, the effectiveness of the group leaders, and the effectiveness of the groups’ interaction with the topic, with the group leader and with one another. GERI staff members provided interventions or support to the group leaders individually or the group as a whole when needed.

Resources 

The research of COF is in progress. For more information, please contact Enyi Jen.

The Counselor Interview Protocol (CIP), a parallel form of Teacher Interview Protocol (TIP), is used to hire camp counselors for the talent development programs at Purdue University. The CIP contains four background questions and seven questions related to specific camp scenarios (e.g., if……, what would you do?). These scenarios were generated based on practical camp experience of the talent development program staff members and thus, the content of the CIP is context sensitive.

The research on TIP revealed that a scenarios based interview question helps the interviewers to know the applicants’ perspectives. A CIP interview is about 30 to 45 minute, using a 5 point Likert type scale and list of relevant key words as a guide during the rating process. When conducting an interview with CIP, we suggest using more than one interviewer and include at least one scenario that is related to the context the interviewees might work.

Resources 

The research of CIP is in progress. For more information, please contact Enyi Jen.

Overview

The HOPE Scale is an instrument, created at Purdue University, designed to aid in the identification of gifted students. It is currently in its third revision. The Scale itself is a teacher rating instrument meaning it is meant to be completed by a students classroom teacher.

Normative Sample

The HOPE Scale was designed for use with K-5 students. The teachers and students who comprised the normative sample were all from Illinois and Indiana. The third version used a sample of 1700 students from three school districts. The grade-level, racial / ethnic, and income and gender demographics of this sample can be seen in Table X and Table Y.

Structure

The HOPE Scale has two subscales: the academic and social. Scores in either of these categories are indicators of giftedness or high ability in that specific area. The academic subscale items include: 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and the social subscale items include: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8.

Reliability

Subscale reliability: In general, reliability indicates consistency. One measure of reliability is the alpha internal consistency of the items. Alpha has a possible range from 0 to 1, with higher alpha levels representing higher reliability, and indicating that the items in the measured scale tend to be answered similarly. This is preferred within each subscale because the items are all meant to measure the same thing. Using the normative sample, the academic subscale yielded an alpha of 0.96. The same sample yielded an alpha for the social subscale of 0.92. This level of consistency is very high, and considered reasonable for individual and group decisions.

Validity

Observed Bias in original norm group: Analyses of measurement invariance have found that the HOPE Scale when used with the normative sample appeared to have a bias against low-income students. Such a bias is a pervasive problem in many standardized measures used in education. Students who are eligible for the free or reduced lunch program received lower scores on both subscales to the degree of approximately half a point. Because of this, we recommend any test users make within-group comparisons based on local norms. This process is described below.

Scoring and Use

Scoring: Individual items are to be added together within each subscale. Because the subscales are measuring different (though related) constructs, i.e., a student’s academic and social indicators of giftedness, subscale scores should each be used in consideration of a student’s giftedness. Subscale scores should not be added together to form one overall score. A student’s subscale scores should then be referenced against local norms (see below), with lower-income students being compared to their lower-income peers.

Use of scores: The HOPE Scale can be used as one procedure to identify gifted students. While identification procedures may vary across school districts, the use of the HOPE Scale is intended to be one of multiple “alternate pathways” (Renzulli et al., 2002) to identify giftedness, none of which would necessarily guarantee entrance into, or exclusion from, a gifted program. Other indicators may be tests of a student’s mental ability (e.g., an IQ test or a test in a more specific domain), evidence of unique talent (e.g., musical ability), and other indications for giftedness in one or more domains. Consult federal, state, and local definitions of giftedness in order to best select identification procedures. The authors of the HOPE Scale recommend against using a set cutoff score on the subscales, partly because of the multiple pathways of identifying giftedness (see above). Instead, the HOPE Scale should be used as a single artifact in a portfolio or other documentation of ability in order for an informed decision to be made. Additionally, administrators should be aware that the number of gifted students in a school will vary from school to school and from year to year, due to various factors. Administrators should establish data collection procedures in order to create local norms (i.e., those observed in a particular district) to better understand the unique scoring patterns of the students in a district at that moment, and for comparison purposes as new students take the HOPE Scale and other measures. These norms can then be used in order to better understand and use the HOPE Scale for local identification purposes.

Local Norms

Although norms were computed based on the sample used in the development of the HOPE Scale, these as well as national norms should not be used for gifted, talented, or high ability program placement due to the fact that they are unlikely to represent local education demographics. Put simply, what is average or gifted for one school is likely to be different from what is average or gifted for your school. For this reason, you should base the programming decisions on a local set of norms for individual schools. When you have collected data using the HOPE Scale or are otherwise ready to establish a set of local norms for your own use, please consult the Creating Local Norms document.

References

• Peters, S. J. & Gentry, M. (2013) Additional validity evidence and across-group equivalency of the HOPE teacher rating scale. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 85-100. 
• Peters, S. J. & Gentry, M. (2012).  Group specific norms and teacher rating scales: Implications for underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics. 23, 125-144
• Peters, S. J., & Gentry, M. (2010). Multi-group construct validity evidence of the HOPE Scale: Instrumentation to identify low-income elementary students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 298-313.

Based on the information contained in the review of the literature related to the importance of Interest, Challenge, Choice, and Enjoyment as constructs central to learning, the survey, My Class Activities was piloted, studied, and developed as an effective means to assess students’ attitudes toward their classrooms regarding these dimensions.  It is designed specifically for students in grades three through eight, and is comprised of four scales, Interest, Challenge, Choice, and Enjoyment operationally defined as follows:

1. Interest:  Reflects positive feelings, a preference for certain topics, subject areas, or activities.
2. Challenge:  Engages the student and requires extra effort.
3. Choice:  Gives the student the right or power to select educational options and direct his/her own learning.
4. Enjoyment:  Provides the student with pleasure and satisfaction (Gentry, Gable & Springer, 2000). 

Because the activities that occur in classrooms occur at different times and different rates depending on the curriculum, instruction, teacher, learner and other variables, a Likert-type frequency repsonse format ranging from never to always (1=never, 2=seldom, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=always) was selected to assess students perceptions of each dimension.  Students respond to each of the 31 items by indicating how frequently they perceive it occurs in their classrooms.  High degrees of student perceived Interest, Challenge, Choice, or Enjoyment in classrooms are reflected by high scores, whereas low degrees of the same are reflected by low scores.  For example, an average score of 4.5 on Challenge would indicate that students perceived their class activities more than often engaging and requiring extra efforts from them, whereas an average score of 1.0 on Enjoyment would indicate that students never found their class pleasurable or satisfying.

Although the dimensions of Interest, Challenge, Choice, and Enjoyment are moderately related, they provide the most information to the user about the nature of the classroom and student perceptions when considered separately.  A single, total, score on the survey would reflect an overall level of satisfaction with school, but might be so broad that its meaning would be lost.

Resources 

• Pereira, N., Peters, S. J., & Gentry, M. (2010). The My Class Activities instrument as used in Saturday enrichment program evaluation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 568-593.
• Gentry, M., & Gable, R. K. (2001). From the Student’s Perspective – My Class Activities: An Instrument for Use in Research and Evaluation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24(4), 322-343.

Student perceptions of Classroom Quality (SPOCQ), assesses student perceptions of the following constructs: meaningfulness, challenge, choice, self-efficacy, and appeal. These constructs are important educational outcomes related to student achievement; consequently, the need for such instrumentation is clear.

SPOCQ may be used in the school-improvement process to assess current perceptions, evaluate classroom quality, set goals and measure pro g ress, and conduct educational research. Further, in schools that have honors or advanced classes, student perceptions of these classes and comparisons of their perceptions with those of general education students can provide insight concerning whether, and how, honors/advanced classes differ from general classes.

Resources 

• Wu, J., Yang, Y. & Jen, E. Y. (2012, November). Examining students’ classroom perceptions in a university-based residential program. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Convention of the National Association for Gifted Children. Denver, CO.
• Jen, E. Y., Wu, J., Yang, Y., & Gentry, M. (2011, November). Teacher instructional quality in a university-based enrichment program: Lessons learned from the observers’ perspective. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Convention of the National Association for Gifted Children. New Orleans, LA.
   
• Chae, Y., & Gentry, M. (2011). Gifted and general high school students’ perceptions of learning and motivational constructs in Korea and the United States. High Ability Studies, 22(1), 103–118.
• Chae, Y., & Gentry, M. (2007). Korean High School Student Perceptions of Classroom Quality: Validation Research. Gifted and Talented International, 22(2), 68-76.

The Teacher Perceptions of Classroom Quality (T-POCQ), a parallel form of Student Perception of Classroom Quality (SPOCQ), assesses teacher perceptions of the same constructs assessed by SPOCQ: meaningfulness, challenge, choice, self-efficacy, and appeal. These constructs are important educational outcomes that relate directly to student achievement in any content area. Teachers who complete the T-POCQ concurrently with their students who complete the SPOCQ can quickly compare their perceptions about these important motivational constructs with their students’ perceptions.

T-POCQ may be used in conjunction with SPOCQ for teachers’ personal improvement plans and action research as well as in the larger school-improvement process to assess current perceptions, evaluate classroom quality, set goals and measure progress, and conduct educational research. Further, in schools that have Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, honors, and Career Technical Education classes, teacher and student perceptions of these classes and comparisons of their perceptions with those of general education teachers and students can provide insights concerning whether, and how, these classes differ from each other.  

Resources 

NOTE: Your privacy-protected results will be used for two purposes: your personal feedback and the researcher’s analyses. The researcher will share your results with you provided your include your name and email address when completing the instrument. Your use of the T-POCQ will assist the developer in exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) studies that will support validity and reliability measures for T-POCQ results. By clicking “download” below, you give your consent for these purposes.

Seward, K. K. (2017). Using gifted student perceptions of motivational techniques to inform teacher reflection (Order No. 10638332). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ CIC Institutions; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.  (2008930914). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/docview/2008930914?accountid=13360

The Classroom Practices Survey (CPS: Archambault et al., 1993) was developed to evaluate teachers’ use of differentiated educational practices with “average” and “gifted” youth. Since its development, CPS has been used in research in gifted education (e.g., Gentry, Rizza, & Owen, 2002; Stamps, 2004) to understand how educators meet the learning needs of individual students with average and high ability in regular classrooms. The original survey contained 39 items to which teachers responded using a 6-point scale from never to more than once a day, measuring the frequency of instructional practices being used with students. This first version of the CPS measured teachers’ self-report use of the following sub-scales: Questioning and Thinking, Providing Challenges and Choices, Reading and Writing, Curriculum Modifications, Enrichment Centers, and Seatwork.

Although CPS has been used by researchers to assess teachers’ use of differentiation strategies in classrooms with students at “average” and “gifted” ability levels, limited psychometric evidence of its validity exists, which may affect the implications of findings of studies using CPS. Additionally, after examining the current literature on differentiation strategies, teacher preparation standards (CCSSO, 2013; NAGC, 2013), some of the CPS sub-scales and items may no longer be relevant for today’s classrooms. This is partially because Archambault et al. (1993) developed CPS using the literature and knowledge based on differentiation practices in the early 1990s, and recommended instructional practices have been changed significantly since then.

CPS-2017R is the revised version of CPS. The six-point response scale is still used; however, on this revision, teachers are asked to respond to their practices concerning student achievement levels, something more observable by teachers than ability level. On it the respond to each item for students who achieve at “low to below average,” “average,” and “above average to high” levels.The revised instrument has 40 items grouped under four sub-scales: Questioning and Thinking, Providing Challenges and Choices, Reading and Writing, and Curriculum Modifications. Of the 40 items, 23 items were from the original instrument. Pereira, Tay, and Maeda (2018) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the revised instrument. CFA yielded fit indices of  .853 (CFI) and .078 (RMSEA) for low to below average-achieving group, .867 and .079 for average-achieving group, and .889 and .077 for above average to high-achieving group. These fit indices were adequate but deviated from suggested cut-off values for good fit (e.g. Brown (2014) suggested a CFI cut-off value of .95 or greater for a good fitting model), so additional revisions may be necessary.  Internal consistency estimates of the data for the four factors ranged from 0.81 to 0.94 for the three groups.

Original Instrument: Classroom Practices Survey (CPS: Archambault et al., 1993)

Resources 

• Archambault, F.X.  Jr., Westberg, K.L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B.W., Emmons, C., & Zhang, W. (1992). Regular  classroom  practices  with  gifted  students:  Results  of  a  national  survey  of classroom  teachers.  Storrs, CT:  The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
• Archambault, F. X., Westberg, K. L., Brown, S. W., Hallmark, B. W., Zhang, W., & Emmons, C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103-119. doi: 10.1177/016235329301600203
• Brown,  T.  (2014).  Confirmatory  factor  analysis  for  applied  research.  New  York,  NY:  Guiford  Press.
• Pereira, N., Tay, J., & Maeda, Y. (November, 2017). Revised Classroom Practices Survey: An instrument to collect information on differentiated educational practices. Session presented at the 64th Annual Convention of the National Association for Gifted Children. Charlotte, NC.
• Pereira, N., Tay, J., & Maeda, Y. (August, 2018).  Revised Classroom Practices Survey: An Instrument to Collect Information on Differentiated Educational Practices. Session presented at the 16th Conference of the European Council for High Ability. Dublin, Ireland.

Developed by Daphne Duncan and Marcia Gentry

The Students’ Awareness and Perceptions of Learning Engineering (STAPLE) instrument was developed to quantitatively measure fourth through eighth grade students’ knowledge of, interest in, and efficacy toward engineering. With the recent addition of engineering to most K-12 testable state standards, efficient and comprehensive instruments are needed to assess changes in student knowledge and perceptions of engineering.

STAPLE was developed using four samples for four separate analyses: content expert review (n= 15), field-test (n=40), pilot-test (n=576), and confirmatory test (n=1,007). Content experts had expertise in either engineering education or gifted education. Students in grades four through eight completed the field-test, pilot-test, and confirmatory test. Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis was used to analyze the dichotomous knowledge items, while factor analysis was used to analyze the six-point scaled interest and efficacy items. IRT analysis of the knowledge items revealed that seven items should be removed from STAPLE in order for the instrument to yield reliable results.

Factor analysis on the interest and efficacy items revealed three factors: Interest in Engineering, Efficacy toward Engineering Global and Social Dynamics, and Efficacy toward Engineering Process and Design. Fit statistics were adequate for each of the factors. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that male students had higher mean factor scores for Interest in Engineering and Efficacy toward Engineering, while female students had higher factor scores for Efficacy toward Engineering Global and Social Dynamics.

Additionally, students identified as gifted had higher factor scores for Engineering Global and Social Dynamics; however, students not identified as gifted had higher factor scores for Interest in Engineering and Efficacy toward Engineering Process and Design. These results have implications for engineering instruction and interventions.

Resources 

Duncan-Wiles, D. S. (2012). Students’ Awareness and Perceptions of Learning Engineering: Content and Construct Validation of an Instrument. (Doctoral Dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Educators are taught from day one in teacher education programs how important it is to activate and assess students’ prior knowledge. Despite this fact, little attention has been placed on how to actually accomplish this difficult task. The General Pre-Assessment of Students (G.P.S.) was created to measure both prior knowledge of a topic and the degree to which a student is motivated to learn about it.

The G.P.S. requires minimal advanced preparation from the teacher and provides powerful information for instructional planning. The teacher simply writes the objectives of the unit in the box at the top of the page and places a picture, phrase, term, or formula in the box next to number five before distributing it to the students. Analyzing the results before beginning an instructional unit will help the teacher eliminate unnecessary repetition, provide additional opportunities for enrichment, or identify areas where scaffolding is necessary. 

Resources 

McIntosh, J. (2014). Curriculum compacting: Organized common sense. In R. Mann & M. Gentry (Eds.) Total School Cluster Grouping & Differentiation: A Comprehensive, Research-Based Plan for Raising Student Achievement & Improving Teacher Practices. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.