Parental Attitudes toward Gifted Students and Gifted Education: Attitude Profiles and Predictors
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (a)
- Rural/urban locality (Azano et al. 2014; Troxclair 2013): As for teachers, parents are likely to be influenced in their attitudes toward gifted students and gifted education by the differences in the educational environment, resources, opportunities, numbers of gifted students, and general community attitudes in rural and urban settings (Jung et al. 2022).
- (b)
- Socio-emotional and academic impacts (Palacios Gonzalez and Jung 2021; Rambo and McCoach 2012; Vialle et al. 2001): Parents, like teachers, are likely to place high priority on the socio-emotional and academic development of their children (Amato and Fowler 2002; Borkowski et al. 2001), which is likely to mean that their attitudes toward gifted students and gifted education may be influenced by their perceptions of the socio-emotional and academic impacts of being gifted, and of gifted education.
- (c)
- School administrative support (Palacios Gonzalez and Jung 2021; Rambo and McCoach 2012): The support of the school leadership for gifted students and gifted education may influence the attitudes of both teachers and parents, because of its possible role in directing and informing the attitudes of the entire school community, and even school culture, with respect to gifted students and gifted education.
- (d)
- Power distance orientation (Jung 2014): Power distance orientation is a cultural orientation variable that refers to the extent to which people (including teachers and parents) consider less powerful members of organizations should accept unequal distributions of power (Hofstede 2001). As part of a well-known model of culture, it addresses a fundamental question faced by societies about how to deal with individual differences in social status, wealth, physical characteristics or mental characteristics.
2. The Present Study
- What types of attitudes do parents have toward gifted students and gifted education?
- What predicts the attitudes of parents toward gifted students and gifted education?
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Participants
3.2. Survey Instrument
3.3. Analysis
3.3.1. Factor Analysis
3.3.2. Latent Profile Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis
4.2. Latent Profile Analysis
4.2.1. Determination of the Optimal Number of Latent Profiles
4.2.2. Interpretation of the Three-Profile Model
4.2.3. Sociodemographic and Related Predictors of Latent Profile Group Membership
4.2.4. Psychological and Perceptual Predictors of Latent Profile Group Membership
4.2.5. Relative Importance of Predictors
5. Discussion
Key Predictors of Parental Attitudes
6. Implications
6.1. Implications for Research
6.2. Implications for Practice
7. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Akaike, Hirotugu. 1983. Information measures and model selection. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute 441983: 277–91. [Google Scholar]
- Albarracin, Dolores, Aashna Sunderrajan, Sophie Lohmann, Man-pui Sally Chan, and Duo Jiang. 2018. The psychology of attitudes, motivation, and persuasion. In The Handbook of Attitudes, Volume 1: Basic Principles. New York: Routledge, pp. 3–44. [Google Scholar]
- Amato, Paul R., and Frieda Fowler. 2002. Parenting practices, child adjustment, and family diversity. Journal of Marriage and Family 64: 703–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assouline, Susan G., Nicholas Colangelo, Joyce VanTassel-Baska, and Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik. 2015. A Nation Empowered. Iowa City: Belin-Blank Center, The University of Iowa, vol. II. [Google Scholar]
- Azano, Amy Price, Carolyn M. Callahan, Tracy C. Missett, and Marguerite Brunner. 2014. Understanding the experiences of gifted education teachers and fidelity of implementation in rural schools. Journal of Advanced Academics 25: 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballam, Nadine, and Anne Sturgess. 2019. Meeting the needs of gifted learners who just don’t ‘fit’: Parent perspectives. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education 28: 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baudson, Tanja Gabriele, and Franzis Preckel. 2013. Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly 28: 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baudson, Tanja Gabriele, and Franzis Preckel. 2016. Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and average-ability students on achievement-relevant dimensions. Gifted Child Quarterly 60: 212–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bégin, Jean, and Françoys Gagné. 1994. Predictors of attitudes toward gifted education: A review of the literature and a blueprint for future research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 17: 161–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bégin, Jean, and Françoys Gagné. 1995. Predictors of a general attitude toward gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 18: 74–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bem, Daryl J. 1970. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Human Affairs. Belmont: Brooks/Cole. [Google Scholar]
- Borkowski, John G., Sharon Landesman Ramey, and Marie Bristol-Power, eds. 2001. Parenting and the Child’s World: Influences on Academic, Intellectual, and Social-Emotional Development. London: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
- Callahan. 2017. The characteristics of gifted students. In Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Edited by Carolyn M. Callahan and Holly L. Hertberg-Davis. New York: Routledge, pp. 153–66. [Google Scholar]
- Campbell, James Reed, and Marilyn Ann Verna. 2007. Effective parental influence: Academic home climate linked to children’s achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation 13: 501–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Celeux, Gilles, and Gilda Soromenho. 1996. An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification 13: 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
- Colangelo, Nicholas, and David F. Dettmann. 1983. A review of research on parents and families of gifted children. Exceptional Children 50: 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colangelo, Nicholas, and Kevin R. Kelly. 1983. A study of student, parent, and teacher attitudes toward gifted programs and gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly 27: 107–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Boer, Anke, Sip Jan Pijl, and Alexander Minnaert. 2010. Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education 25: 165–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Boer, Anke, Sip Jan Pijl, Wendy Post, and Alexander Minnaert. 2012. Which variables relate to the attitudes of teachers, parents and peers towards students with special educational needs in regular education? Educational Studies 38: 433–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Souza Fleith, Denise, Daniela Vilarinho-Pereira, and Renata Muniz Prado. 2024. Voices from the Families: Strategies for and Challenges in Raising a Gifted Child. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. Advance online publication. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duquette, Cheryll, Shari Orders, Stephanie Fullarton, and Kristen Robertson-Grewal. 2011. Fighting for their rights: Advocacy experiences of parents of children identified with intellectual giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 34: 488–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, Alice H., and Shelly Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. [Google Scholar]
- Education Council. 2019. Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration. Available online: https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/alice-springs-mparntwe-educationdeclaration (accessed on 4 January 2024).
- Ewing, Donna L., Jeremy J. Monsen, and Stephan Kielblock. 2018. Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A critical review of published questionnaires. Educational Psychology in Practice 34: 150–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fabringar, Leandre R., Tara K. MacDonald, and Duane T. Wegener. 2018. The origins and structure of attitudes. In The Handbook of Attitudes, Volume 1: Basic Principles. New York: Routledge, pp. 109–57. [Google Scholar]
- Field, Andy. 2018. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
- Flynn, Leisa Reinecke, Ronald E. Goldsmith, and Wan-Min Kim. 2000. A crosscultural validation of three marketing scales for fashion research: Involvement, opinion seeking, and knowledge. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 4: 110–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, Donna Y., and Tarek C. Grantham. 2003. Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice 42: 217–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ford, Donna Y., Jemimah L. Young, Brian L. Wright, and Ramon B. Goings. 2019. Honoring differences: Improving the representation of culturally different gifted students based on equity. In The Sage Handbook of Gifted and Talented Education. Edited by Belle Wallace, John Senior and Dorothy Sisk. London: Sage, pp. 59–69. [Google Scholar]
- Foster, Joanne. 2000. A Case Study Approach to Understanding the Gifted Experience: Children’s and Parent’s Perceptions of Labeling Placement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, Joan. 2000. Families: The essential context for gifts and talents. In International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, 2nd ed. Edited by Kurt A. Heller, Franz J. Monks, Robert J. Sternberg and Rena F. Subotnik. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 573–85. [Google Scholar]
- Gagné, Françoys. 2009. Building gifts into talents: Detailed overview of the DMGT 2.0. In Leading Change in Gifted Education: The Festschrift of Dr Joyce VanTassel-Baska. Edited by Bronwyn MacFarlane and Tamra Stambaugh. Waco: Prufrock Press. [Google Scholar]
- Gagné, Françoys. 2021. Differentiating Giftedness from Talent: The DMGT Perspective on Talent Development. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Gasteiger-Klicpera, Barbara, Christian Klicpera, Markus Gebhardt, and Susanne Schwab. 2013. Attitudes and experiences of parents regarding inclusive and special school education for children with learning and intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education 17: 663–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geake, John G., and Miraca U. M. Gross. 2008. Teachers’ negative affect toward academically gifted students: An evolutionary psychological study. Gifted Child Quarterly 52: 217–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guthrie, Kate. 2019. “Nothing is ever easy”: Parent perceptions of intensity in their gifted adolescent children. The Qualitative Report 24: 2080–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson. 2019. Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed. Andover: Cengage. [Google Scholar]
- Hertzog, Nancy B., and Tess Bennett. 2004. In whose eyes? Parents’ perspectives on the learning needs of their gifted children. Roeper Review 26: 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hishinuma, Earl S., and Stephanie T. Nishimura. 2000. Parent attitudes on the importance and success of integrated self-contained services for students who are gifted, learning disabled, and gifted/learning disabled. Roeper Review 22: 241–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management 1: 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoogeveen, Lianne. 2015. Academic acceleration in Europe: A comparison of accelerative opportunities and activities. In A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America’s Brightest Students. Edited by Susan G. Assouline, Nicholas Colangelo, Joyce VanTassel-Baska and Ann Lupkowski-Shoplik. Iowa City: Belin-Blank Center, The University of Iowa, vol. II, pp. 209–23. [Google Scholar]
- Huff, Rose E., Beth M. Houskamp, Alice V. Watkins, Mark Stanton, and Bethany Tavegia. 2005. The experiences of gifted African American children: A phenomenological study. Roeper Review 27: 215–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jolly, Jennifer L., and Michael S. Matthews. 2012. A critique of the literature on parenting gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35: 259–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, Jae Yup. 2014. Predictors of attitudes to gifted programs/provisions: Evidence from preservice educators. Gifted Child Quarterly 58: 247–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, Jae Yup. 2019. The Career Decisions of Gifted Students and Other High Ability Groups. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Jung, Jae Yup, Geraldine Townend, Peta K. Hay, and Susen R. Smith. 2022. The state of knowledge in rural gifted education: A systematic literature review. Journal of Advanced Academics 33: 315–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koenig, Harold G., Ron E. Westlund, Linda K. George, Dana C. Hughes, Dan G. Blazer, and Celia Hybels. 1993. Abbreviating the Duke Social Support Index for use in chronically ill elderly individuals. Psychosomatics 34: 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamb, Stephen, Shuyan Huo, Anne Walstab, Andrew Wade, Quentin Maire, Esther Doecke, Jennifer Jackson, and Zoran Endekov. 2020. Educational Opportunity in Australia 2020: Who Succeeds and Who Misses Out. Melbourne: Centre for International Research on Education Systems, Victoria University. [Google Scholar]
- Lassig, Carly. 2009. Teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. Australian Journal of Gifted Education 18: 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lechler, Thomas. 2001. Social interaction: A determinant of entrepreneurial team venture success. Small Business Economics 16: 263–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, Yungtai, Nancy R. Mendell, and Donald B. Rubin. 2001. Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika 88: 767–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahat, Marian. 2008. The development of a psychometrically-sound instrument to measure teachers’ multidimensional attitudes toward inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education 23: 82–92. [Google Scholar]
- Makel, Matthew C. 2009. Student and parent attitudes before and after the gifted identification process. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 33: 126–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maznevski, Martha L., Joseph J. DiStefano, Carolina B. Gomez, Niels G. Nooderhaven, and Pei-Chuan Wu. 1997. Ariations in cultural orientations within and among five countries. Paper presented at the Academy of International Business Annual Meeting, Monterrey, Mexico, October 8–12. [Google Scholar]
- McCoach, D. Betsy, and Del Siegle. 2007. What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted? Gifted Child Quarterly 51: 246–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McLachlan, Geoffrey J. 1987. On bootstrapping the likelihood ratio test statistic for the number of components in a normal mixture. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics 36: 318–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morawska, Alina, and Matthew R. Sanders. 2009. Parenting gifted and talented children: Conceptual and empirical foundations. Gifted Child Quarterly 53: 163–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morin, Alexandre J. S., Christophe Maïano, Benjamin Nagengast, Herbert W. Marsh, Julien Morizot, and Michel Janosz. 2011. General growth mixture analysis of adolescents’ developmental trajectories of anxiety: The impact of untested invariance assumptions on substantive interpretations. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 18: 613–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morin, Alexandre J. S., John P. Meyer, Jordane Creusier, and Franck Biétry. 2016. Multiple-group analysis of similarity in latent profile solutions. Organizational Research Methods 19: 231–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mullen, Claire, and Jae Yup Jung. 2019. Teachers’ attitudes towards gifted programs and provisions: An Australian study of primary and secondary school teachers. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education 28: 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mun, Rachel U., Miriam D. Ezzani, and Glorry Yeung. 2021. Parent engagement in identifying and serving diverse gifted students: What is the role of leadership? Journal of Advanced Academics 32: 533–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagin, Daniel. 2005. Group-Based Modeling of Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Oakes, Jeannie, Amy Stuart Wells, Makeba Jones, and Amanda Datnow. 2012. The social construction of ability, cultural politics, and resistance to reform. In History of Multicultural Education Volume 2: Foundations and Stratifications. Edited by Carl A. Grant and Thandeka K. Chapman. New York: Routledge, pp. 303–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oakes, Jeannie, Amy Stuart Wells, Susan Yonezawa, and Karen Ray. 2014. Change agentry and the quest for equity: Lessons from detracking schools. In The Sharp Edge of Educational Change. Edited by Nina Bascia and Andy Hargreaves. London: Routledge, pp. 72–96. [Google Scholar]
- Oskamp, Stuart, and P. Wesley Schultz. 2005. Attitudes and Opinions, 3rd ed. New York: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
- Palacios Gonzalez, Paloma, and Jae Yup Jung. 2021. The predictors of attitudes toward acceleration as an educational intervention: Primary school teachers in Mexico. High Ability Studies 32: 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peebles, Jodi L., Sal Mendaglio, and Michelle McCowan. 2023. The experience of parenting gifted children: A thematic analysis of interviews with parents of elementary-age children. Gifted Child Quarterly 67: 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preckel, Franzis, Tanja Gabriele Baudson, Sabine Krolak-Schwerdt, and Sabine Glock. 2015. Gifted and maladjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted children. American Educational Research Journal 52: 1160–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rambo, Karen E., and D. Betsy McCoach. 2012. Teacher attitudes toward subject-specific acceleration instrument development and validation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 35: 129–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renzulli, Joseph S. 1975. A Guidebook for Evaluating Programs for the Gifted and Talented. Ventura: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools. [Google Scholar]
- Roda, Allison, and Amy Stuart Wells. 2013. School choice policies and racial segregation: Where white parents’ good intentions, anxiety, and privilege collide. American Journal of Education 119: 261–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwarz, Gideon. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics 6: 461–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sclove, Stanley L. 1987. Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika 52: 333–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shore, Bruce M. 2021. Context matters in gifted education. Education Sciences 11: 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sigleman, Lee, and Susan Welch. 1993. The contact hypothesis revisited: Black-white interaction and positive racial attitudes. Social Forces 71: 781–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thraves, Genevieve. 2024. The Australian paradigm: A point in time snapshot of gifted education across Australian state and territory policy documents, guidance, and web-based information. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education 33: 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troxclair, Debra A. 2013. Preservice teacher attitudes toward giftedness. Roeper Review 35: 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vialle, Wilma, Tracey Ashton, Greg Carlon, and Florence Rankin. 2001. Acceleration: A coat of many colours. Roeper Review 24: 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vidergor, Hava E., and Lea Azar Gordon. 2015. The case of a self-contained elementary classroom for the gifted: Student, teacher, and parent perceptions of existing versus desired teaching–learning aspects. Roeper Review 37: 150–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Jichuan, and Xiaoqian Wang. 2020. Structural Equation Modeling: Applications Using Mplus, 2nd ed. Hoboken: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- Wellisch, Mimi. 2021. Parenting with eyes wide open: Young gifted children, early entry and social isolation. Gifted Education International 37: 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, Amy Stuart, and Irene Serna. 1996. The politics of culture: Understanding local political resistance to detracking in racially mixed schools. Harvard Educational Review 66: 93–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiley, Kristofor, and Thomas P. Hébert. 2014. Social and emotional traits of gifted youth. In Critical Issues and Practices in Gifted Education: What the Research Says. Edited by Jonathan A. Plucker and Carolyn M. Callahan. Waco: Prufrock, pp. 593–608. [Google Scholar]
- Wirthwein, Linda, Sebastian Bergold, Franzis Preckel, and Ricarda Steinmayr. 2019. Personality and school functioning of intellectually gifted and nongifted adolescents: Self-perceptions and parents’ assessments. Learning and Individual Differences 73: 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable | Details | Scale Origin | Cronbach α | Sample Item | Response Format |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sociodemographic Variables | Age, Gender, Educational attainment, Place of birth, Ethnicity, Urban/rural locality (1 item each) | “Gender” | Open-ended | ||
Child-related variables | Child’s school, Giftedness of child (1 item each) | “Do you consider your child to be gifted?” | Open-ended | ||
Traditional attitudes toward gifted students/ gifted education | Supportive attitudes (6 items) | Originally developed by McCoach and Siegle (2007), and slightly modified by Jung (2014) | .76 (McCoach and Siegle 2007); | “Our schools should offer special educational services for gifted students” | 7-point Likert-type scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) |
.72 (Jung 2014) | |||||
Perceptions of elitism (6 items) | Originally developed by McCoach and Siegle (2007), and slightly modified by Jung (2014) | .80 (McCoach and Siegle 2007); | “Special programs for gifted students have the drawback of creating elitism” | 7-point Likert-type scale | |
.75 (Jung 2014) | |||||
Tricomponent view of attitudes | Cognitive attitude (6 items) | Mahat (2008), which had a special education context | .77 (Mahat 2008) | “I believe that gifted students should be taught in special settings for gifted students” modified from “I believe that students with a disability should be taught in special education schools” | 7-point Likert-type scale |
Affective attitude (6 items) | Mahat (2008), which had a special education context | .78 (Mahat 2008) | “I get irritated when I am unable to understand gifted students” modified from “I get irritated when I am unable to understand students with a disability.” | 7-point Likert-type scale | |
Behavioral attitude (6 items) | Mahat (2008), which had a special education context | .91 (Mahat 2008) | “I am willing to encourage gifted students to participate in social activities” modified from “I am willing to encourage students with a disability to participate in all social activities in the regular classroom” | 7-point Likert-type scale | |
Psychological/ perceptual predictors | Power distance orientation (7 items) | “Relational hierarchy” scale in Maznevski et al. (1997), slightly modified by Jung (2014) | .74 (Jung 2014) | “People at lower levels in organizations should not have much authority” | 7-point Likert-type scale |
Perceived knowledge of giftedness (7 items) | Jung (2014) from scales including Renzulli’s (1975) Key Features Model for evaluation of gifted programs and the subjective knowledge scale (Flynn et al. 2000) | .86 (Jung 2014); | “I know quite a lot about giftedness” | 7-point Likert-type scale | |
.91 (Mullen and Jung 2019) | |||||
Contact with gifted persons (7 items) | Jung (2014) from scales including Sigleman and Welch’s (1993) survey of interracial contact, Koenig et al.’s (1993) Duke Social Support Index, and Lechler’s (2001) social interaction scales | .77 (Jung 2014); | “I know a gifted person who I would consider to be a close personal friend” | 7-point Likert-type scale | |
.80 (Mullen and Jung 2019) | |||||
Self-perceptions of giftedness (6 items) | McCoach and Siegle (2007; 5 items) and Jung (2014; 1 item) | .94 (McCoach and Siegle 2007); | “I am gifted” | 7-point Likert-type scale | |
.88 (Jung 2014); | |||||
.95 (Mullen and Jung 2019) | |||||
School administrative support (6 items) | Palacios Gonzalez and Jung (2021), which was adapted from Rambo and McCoach (2012). Both scales had a focus on acceleration | .73 (Palacios Gonzalez and Jung 2021) | “My child’s school principal would be open to special programs/provisions for gifted students” modified from “My principal would be open to considering acceleration for a gifted student” | 7-point Likert-type scale | |
Socio-emotional impact (6 items) | Palacios Gonzalez and Jung (2021), which was adapted from Rambo and McCoach (2012). Both scales had a focus on acceleration | .73 (Palacios Gonzalez and Jung 2021) | “Gifted programs/ provisions are harmful to a student’s emotional well- being” modified from “Acceleration is harmful to a student’s emotional well-being” | 7-point Likert-type scale | |
Academic impact (6 items) | Academic benefits scale in Rambo and McCoach (2012), which had a focus on acceleration | .75 (Rambo and McCoach 2012) | “Gifted students placed in special gifted programs are likely to feel confident about their academic abilities” modified from “Students who accelerate in a specific subject are more likely to feel confident in that subject than students of the same ability who did not accelerate” | 7-point Likert-type scale |
Factors/Items | Loading | Alpha |
---|---|---|
Support for Gifted Education Adaptations | .92 | |
F6. I am willing to support the adaptation of the curriculum to meet the individual needs of gifted students | .87 | |
F17. I am willing to support the modification of the learning environment to meet the needs of gifted students | .87 | |
F30. I believe that appropriate modifications should be made to the learning environment to cater to the needs of gifted students | .86 | |
F27. I am willing to support the adaptation of assessment practices for gifted students in order to cater to their specific needs | .83 | |
F16. I am willing to provide the necessary support for gifted students | .80 | |
F19. I believe that the regular curriculum of the school should be adapted to meet the needs of gifted students | .71 | |
F22. I am willing to adapt the way I interact with gifted students to address their specific needs | .68 | |
F20. I am uncomfortable when the needs of gifted students are not supported in the classroom | .67 | |
F3. Our schools should offer special educational services for gifted students | .60 | |
F11. I get upset when gifted students cannot progress academically due to the constraints of the curriculum | .53 | |
F2. I believe that gifted students should be allowed to progress academically in school at a rate that is commensurate with their ability level | .49 | |
F15. Gifted students need special attention to fully develop their talents | .49 | |
Socio-Emotional Impact | .87 | |
E6. Gifted students who are provided with special educational services may experience academic burnout * | .84 | |
E2. Gifted students who are placed in special gifted programs may experience a lot of stress * | .79 | |
E11. Gifted programs/provisions are harmful to a student’s social wellbeing * | .79 | |
E5. Gifted programs/provisions are harmful to a student’s emotional wellbeing * | .75 | |
E12. Gifted students who are placed in special gifted programs may not participate in many social activities * | .68 | |
E17. Gifted students who receive special educational interventions may feel pressure to perform well * | .47 | |
Self-Perceptions of Giftedness | .92 | |
D16. Most of my family and friends consider me gifted | .97 | |
D20. People consider me gifted | .96 | |
D11. I am gifted | .77 | |
D14. I was, or could have been, in a gifted program in school | .74 | |
D18. I would very much like to be considered a gifted person | .57 | |
School Administrative Support | .91 | |
E10. The leadership at my child’s school is open to special educational interventions for gifted students | .92 | |
E1. My child’s school would consider offering special educational services for gifted students | .84 | |
E4. My child’s school principal would be open to special programs/provisions for gifted students | .83 | |
E16. The culture at my child’s school is supportive of gifted education | .80 | |
E9. My child’s school system would support gifted education | .75 | |
E15. Guidelines for gifted education may be created at my child’s school | .56 | |
Knowledge of Giftedness | .87 | |
D10. I am knowledgeable about the types of classroom activities that are suitable for gifted students | .86 | |
D4. I understand the needs of gifted students | .80 | |
D8. I am familiar with some of the goals and objectives of programs designed for gifted students | .74 | |
D6. I know quite a lot about giftedness | .71 | |
D19. I have a fairly good idea about how to identify gifted people | .57 | |
D15. Compared to most people, I don’t know a lot about giftedness * | .52 | |
Authority | .78 | |
C2. People at higher levels in organizations have a responsibility to make important decisions for people below | .75 | |
C1. A hierarchy of authority is the best form of organization in educational or professional settings | .73 | |
C3. People should be rewarded based on their level in the organization | .63 | |
C4. The highest ranking person in a team should take the lead | .61 | |
Academic Impact | .79 | |
E13. Gifted students who are given special educational services are likely to go to university | .78 | |
E8. Gifted students who are offered special educational interventions are likely to be admitted into highly selective courses at university | .73 | |
E18. Gifted students who are given a special education are likely to pursue university studies in the area in which they received special education | .66 | |
E7. Gifted students placed in special gifted programs are likely to feel confident about their academic abilities | .64 | |
E3. Gifted students who receive special educational services are more likely to achieve better academic results than gifted students who do not receive such services | .46 | |
Contact with Gifted Persons | .81 | |
D5. Many of my acquaintances are gifted | .83 | |
D12. I regularly come across gifted people in my day-to-day life | .66 | |
D2. I believe that a lot of gifted people live in my neighborhood | .61 | |
D13. Most of my family and friends are gifted | .59 | |
D3. I know a gifted person who I would consider to be a fairly close personal friend | .41 | |
Support for Special Gifted Education Settings | .63 | |
F9. I believe that gifted students should be taught in special settings for gifted students | .68 | |
F26. I believe that gifted students should be placed in special schools so that they do not experience social rejection | .60 | |
F21. I am disconcerted that gifted students are required to remain in the regular classroom, regardless of their level of giftedness | .55 | |
Subservience | .70 | |
C6. Organizations should have separate facilities (such as eating areas) for higher level people | .60 | |
C5. People at lower levels in organizations should carry out the requests of people at higher levels without question | .51 | |
C7. People at lower levels in organizations should not have much authority | .46 | |
Perceptions of Non-Elitism | .80 | |
F28. When gifted students are put in special classes, the other students feel devalued * | .67 | |
F18. By separating students into gifted and non-gifted groups, we increase the labeling of students as strong-weak, good–less good, etc. * | .67 | |
F24. Special programs for gifted students have the drawback of creating elitism* | .51 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Support for Gifted Education Adaptations | 1.00 | ||||||||||
2. Socio-Emotional Impact | .54 ** | 1.00 | |||||||||
3. Self-Perception of Giftedness | .15 ** | .10 | 1.00 | ||||||||
4. School Administrative Support | .05 | −.07 | −.01 | 1.00 | |||||||
5. Knowledge of Giftedness | .31 ** | .13 * | .51 ** | .06 | 1.00 | ||||||
6. Authority | .14 * | .16 ** | .13 * | .05 | .06 | 1.00 | |||||
7. Academic Impact | .38 ** | .20 ** | .17 ** | .08 | .09 | .44 ** | 1.00 | ||||
8. Contact with Gifted Persons | .10 | −.02 | .62 ** | .03 | .45 ** | .13 * | .19 ** | 1.00 | |||
9. Support for Special Gifted Education Settings | .09 | .16 ** | .04 | −.13 * | −.01 | .33 ** | .40 ** | .18 ** | 1.00 | ||
10. Subservience | −.15 ** | −.21 ** | .05 | −.12 * | .02 | .21 ** | .10 | .06 | .12 * | 1.00 | |
11. Perceptions of Non-Elitism | .42 ** | .59 ** | .08 | −.02 | .13 * | −.02 | .04 | .08 | .05 | −.03 | 1.00 |
Latent Profiles | Free Parameters | Log Likelihood | AIC | BIC | ABIC | Entropy | VLMR LRT p-value | aLMR LRT p-value | BLRT p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | 10 | −1169 | 2358 | 2396 | 2364 | .67 | < .001 | < .001 | < .001 |
3 | 14 | −1160 | 2349 | 2402 | 2357 | .70 | .087 | .097 | < .001 |
4 | 18 | −1155 | 2347 | 2415 | 2358 | .75 | .212 | .227 | .286 |
5 | 22 | −1148 | 2341 | 2424 | 2354 | .76 | .093 | .102 | < .001 |
6 | 26 | −1139 | 2330 | 2428 | 2345 | .79 | .348 | .360 | .020 |
Classification Probabilities for the Most Likely Latent Profile Membership (Row) by Latent Profile (Column) | Final Counts and Proportions for the Latent Profiles Based on Estimated Posterior Probabilities | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Profile 1 | Profile 2 | Profile 3 | Count | Proportion | ||
Profile 1 | .89 | .11 | .00 | Profile 1 | 72 | .22 |
Profile 2 | .05 | .84 | .11 | Profile 2 | 164 | .51 |
Profile 3 | .00 | .13 | .87 | Profile 3 | 86 | .27 |
Gender | Urban vs. Rural | Perceive Child Gifted | Educational Attainment | Ethnicity | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Female (n = 253) | Male (n = 67) | Urban (n = 263) | Rural (n = 54) | Yes (n = 187) | No (n = 134) | Non- University (n = 85) | Bachelor Degree (n = 167) | Advanced Degree (n = 66) | Anglo-Saxon (n = 205) | European (n = 55) | Asian (n = 33) | Other (n = 16) | ||
Profile 1 | Count | 56 | 16 | 52 | 19 | 62 | 10 | 14 | 38 | 19 | 43 | 12 | 10 | 4 |
% | 22% | 24% | 20% | 35% | 33% | 7% | 16% | 23% | 29% | 21% | 22% | 30% | 25% | |
Profile 2 | Count | 133 | 29 | 139 | 21 | 92 | 72 | 36 | 90 | 35 | 107 | 30 | 15 | 9 |
% | 53% | 43% | 53% | 39% | 49% | 54% | 42% | 54% | 53% | 52% | 54% | 46% | 56% | |
Profile 3 | Count | 64 | 22 | 72 | 14 | 33 | 52 | 35 | 39 | 12 | 55 | 13 | 8 | 3 |
% | 25% | 33% | 27% | 26% | 18% | 39% | 41% | 23% | 18% | 27% | 24% | 24% | 19% | |
Pearson χ2 | 2.09 | 6.52 * | 36.49 *** | 13.17 * | 2.08 | |||||||||
Cramer’s V | .08 | .14 * | .34 *** | .20 * | .06 | |||||||||
p value | .35 (ns) | .04 | < .001 | .01 | .91 (ns) |
Predictor | Profile | Mean | SD | F | Sig. | η2 | p-value (Post Hoc Test with Bonferroni Correction) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Profile 1 | Profile 2 | |||||||
Knowledge of Giftedness | Profile 1 | 0.50 | 0.99 | 16.14 *** | < .001 | .09 | ||
Profile 2 | −0.10 | 0.94 | < .001 | |||||
Profile 3 | −0.29 | 0.74 | < .001 | .35 | ||||
Contact with Gifted Persons | Profile 1 | 0.17 | 0.94 | 2.46 | .09 | .02 | ||
Profile 2 | −0.10 | 0.90 | .09 | |||||
Profile 3 | −0.06 | 0.81 | .32 | 1.00 | ||||
Self-Perceptions of Giftedness | Profile 1 | 0.25 | 0.98 | 3.95 * | .02 | .02 | ||
Profile 2 | −0.11 | 0.99 | .02 | |||||
Profile 3 | −0.08 | 0.80 | .09 | 1.00 | ||||
School Administrative Support | Profile 1 | −0.17 | 1.11 | 8.83 *** | < .001 | .05 | ||
Profile 2 | 0.20 | 0.90 | .01 | |||||
Profile 3 | −0.26 | 0.76 | 1.00 | < .001 | ||||
Academic Impact | Profile 1 | 0.43 | 0.99 | 19.00 *** | < .001 | .11 | ||
Profile 2 | −0.03 | 0.77 | < .001 | |||||
Profile 3 | −0.38 | 0.76 | < .001 | .004 | ||||
Social-Emotional Impact | Profile 1 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 68.22 *** | < .001 | .30 | ||
Profile 2 | −0.06 | 0.75 | < .001 | |||||
Profile 3 | −0.49 | 0.69 | < .001 | < .001 | ||||
Authority | Profile 1 | 0.09 | 0.97 | 1.63 | .20 | .01 | ||
Profile 2 | 0.00 | 0.90 | 1.00 | |||||
Profile 3 | −0.15 | 0.77 | .24 | .55 | ||||
Subservience | Profile 1 | −0.19 | 0.76 | 3.53 * | .03 | .02 | ||
Profile 2 | −0.05 | 0.86 | .64 | |||||
Profile 3 | 0.15 | 0.70 | .03 | .21 |
Predictors | Profile 1 vs. Profile 2 | Profile 2 vs. Profile 3 | Profile 1 vs. Profile 3 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | S.E. | Sig. | Exp(B) | B | S.E. | Sig. | Exp(B) | B | S.E. | Sig. | Exp(B) | |
Female | −0.022 | 0.468 | .963 | 0.979 | 0.588 | 0.404 | .145 | 1.801 | 0.567 | 0.569 | .319 | 1.763 |
Urban | −1.357 ** | 0.512 | .008 | 0.257 | −0.159 | 0.482 | .742 | 0.853 | −1.516 * | 0.640 | .018 | 0.220 |
Perception of child as gifted | 1.410 ** | 0.532 | .008 | 4.096 | 1.536 *** | 0.406 | .000 | 4.645 | 2.946 *** | 0.632 | < .001 | 19.023 |
No university degree | 0.078 | 0.617 | .899 | 1.081 | −1.180 * | 0.530 | .026 | 0.307 | −1.101 | 0.759 | .147 | 0.332 |
Bachelor degree | 0.286 | 0.479 | .551 | 1.331 | −0.347 | 0.479 | .469 | 0.707 | −0.061 | 0.637 | .924 | 0.941 |
Anglo-Saxon | 0.225 | 0.888 | .800 | 1.253 | −0.349 | 0.791 | .659 | 0.705 | −0.124 | 1.115 | .912 | 0.884 |
European | 0.205 | 0.955 | .830 | 1.228 | −0.432 | 0.881 | .624 | 0.649 | −0.227 | 1.217 | .852 | 0.797 |
Asian | −0.508 | 1.051 | .629 | 0.602 | −0.946 | 0.983 | .336 | 0.388 | −1.455 | 1.359 | .284 | 0.234 |
Knowledge of Giftedness | 0.790 ** | 0.249 | .001 | 2.202 | 0.387 | 0.221 | .080 | 1.473 | 1.177 *** | 0.313 | < .001 | 3.244 |
Contact with Gifted Persons | 0.017 | 0.284 | .952 | 1.017 | −0.156 | 0.269 | .562 | 0.856 | −0.139 | 0.367 | .705 | 0.870 |
Self-Perception of Giftedness | −0.253 | 0.284 | .373 | 0.777 | −0.644 * | 0.283 | .023 | 0.525 | −0.897 * | 0.377 | .017 | 0.408 |
Administrative Support | −0.390 | 0.205 | .057 | 0.677 | 0.750 *** | 0.209 | < .001 | 2.117 | 0.360 | 0.265 | .175 | 1.433 |
Academic Impact | 0.799 ** | 0.283 | .005 | 2.224 | 0.917 *** | 0.252 | < .001 | 2.502 | 1.716 *** | 0.360 | .000 | 5.564 |
Socio-Emotional Impact | 1.499 *** | 0.281 | < .000 | 4.479 | 0.830 ** | 0.254 | .001 | 2.294 | 2.330 *** | 0.361 | < .001 | 10.274 |
Authority | −0.370 | 0.271 | .172 | 0.690 | −0.244 | 0.222 | .273 | 0.784 | −0.614 | 0.332 | .064 | 0.541 |
Subservience | 0.023 | 0.301 | .940 | 1.023 | −0.409 | 0.251 | .103 | 0.664 | −0.386 | 0.364 | .289 | 0.680 |
Tier | Predictors |
---|---|
1 | Perceptions of child as gifted |
Socio-emotional impact | |
Academic impact | |
2 | Knowledge of giftedness |
Rural locality | |
Self-perceptions of giftedness | |
3 | School administrative support |
Educational attainment | |
Subservience |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jung, J.Y.; Lee, J. Parental Attitudes toward Gifted Students and Gifted Education: Attitude Profiles and Predictors. J. Intell. 2024, 12, 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12050048
Jung JY, Lee J. Parental Attitudes toward Gifted Students and Gifted Education: Attitude Profiles and Predictors. Journal of Intelligence. 2024; 12(5):48. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12050048
Chicago/Turabian StyleJung, Jae Yup, and Jihyun Lee. 2024. "Parental Attitudes toward Gifted Students and Gifted Education: Attitude Profiles and Predictors" Journal of Intelligence 12, no. 5: 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12050048