Vol. 3 No. 2 (2025): Revista de Investigación Educativa, Intervención Pedagógica y Docencia
Artículos

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Cut-off Points in the RAVEN Test for the Identification of Students with Gifted Abilities in Mexico

PDF (Spanish)
  • Luis Miguel Cortes-Costilla
Luis Miguel Cortes-Costilla
Secretaría de Educación Pública
DOI: https://doi.org/10.71770/18p7zq73

Published 2025-07-04

Keywords

  • identification,
  • non-verbal intelligence test,
  • inclusion,
  • educational assessment

Copyright (c) 2025 Luis Miguel Cortes-Costilla

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Cut-off Points in the RAVEN Test for the Identification of Students with Gifted Abilities in Mexico. (2025). Revista De Investigación Educativa, Intervención Pedagógica Y Docencia, 3(2), 26-50. https://doi.org/10.71770/18p7zq73

Abstract

The low identification of Gifted children (GC) in Mexico is a challenge, especially in rural and suburban areas. This is partly due to the lack of validated instruments for the educational context. It is important to consider the optimal cut-off point when identifying students, as this could be set above the capabilities of some students. Traditional assessments, with high percentiles, may limit the adequate identification of these students. Method: 130 students from public schools in Zacatecas participated, and the RAVEN test was administered. To validate the results, RAVEN scores were compared with Estimated IQ scores obtained through the WISC-IV, considered the Gold Standard. Different cut-off points (percentiles 85, 90, 95, and 98) were analyzed to determine which offers the best diagnostic accuracy. Results: The 90th percentile on RAVEN provides the best balance between accuracy and sensitivity for identifying GC students with an estimated IQ of ≥115, while the 95th percentile seems suitable for identifying students with higher IQs (≥120 and ≥125). The higher percentile showed greater accuracy but lower sensitivity, potentially excluding students with potential. Conclusions: Depending on the objective of identification, it is essential to determine the profile to be considered, as the 90th percentile identifies more students, though with some false positives, and the higher percentiles (95 and 98) are efficient for identifying GC students with greater potential, potentially leaving out those who could be further developed.

PDF (Spanish)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Alsuwailimi, M. S. (2024). Identification of gifted students in different global contexts: literature review. Journal of Special Education & Rehabilitation (2314-8608), 17.
  2. Carman, C. A., & Taylor, D. K. (2010). Socioeconomic Status Effects on Using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) to Identify the Gifted/Talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209355976
  3. Carman, C. A., Walther, C. A., & Bartsch, R. A. (2020). Differences in using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 nonverbal battery versus the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) 2 to identify the gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(3), 171-191.
  4. Chávez-Soto, B. I., Zacatelco, R. F., & González, G. A. (2018). ¿Es efectiva la nominación del maestro en estudiantes sobresalientes? Revista Educación y Desarrollo(45), 25-35.
  5. Covarrubias-Pizarro, P., . (2018). Del concepto de aptitudes sobresalientes al de altas capacidades y el talento. IE Revista de Investigación Educativa de la REDIECH, 9(17), 53-67. https://doi.org/ https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=521655454004
  6. Donate, N., & Borges, Á. (2018). La influencia de la clase social en la identificación e intervención del alumnado de altas capacidades The influence of social class in the identification and intervention of students with high abilities. Talincrea, 4(8), 3-14. https://www.cucs.udg.mx/talineng/sites/default/files/adjuntos/04_08/04_influencia.pdf
  7. Flynn, A. S. (2023). Black Minds Matter: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Persistent Underrepresentation of Black Students in Gifted Education Programs. Journal of Leadership, Equity, and Research, 9(1), 6-20.
  8. Flynn, J. R. (2007). What is intelligence?: Beyond the Flynn effect. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Gagné, F. (2017). The Integrative Model of Talent Development (IMTD). In J. A. Plucker, A. N. Rinn, & M. C. Makel (Eds.), From Giftedness to Gifted Education: Reflecting Theory in Practice. Prufrock Press Inc. .
  10. Guez, A., Peyre, H., Le Cam, M., Gauvrit, N., & Ramus, F. (2018). Are high-IQ students more at risk of school failure?. Intelligence, 71, 32-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.09.003
  11. Guignard, J. H., Kermarrec, S., & Tordjman, S. (2016). Relationships between intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted children. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 209-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.006
  12. Gülsen Erden , İbrahim Yiğit , Çelik, C., & Guzey, M. (2020). The diagnostic utility of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV) in identification of gifted children. The Journal of General Psychology, 143(3), 371-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2020.1862038
  13. Hajian-Tilaki, K. (2018). The choice of methods in determining the optimal cut-off value for quantitative diagnostic test evaluation. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 27(8), 2374-2383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280216680383
  14. Hodges, J., & Gentry, M. (2021). Underrepresentation in Gifted Education in the Context of Rurality and Socioeconomic Status. Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(2), 135-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202x20969143
  15. Holocher-Ertl, S., Kubinger, K. D., & Hohensinn, C. (2008). Identifying children who may be cognitively gifted: The gap between practical demands and scientific supply. Psychology Science,, 50(2), 97.
  16. Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., & Frisbie, D. A. . (2001). Iowa tests of basic skills (ITBS) forms A, B, and C. Riverside Publishing Company.
  17. Johnsen, S. K. (2021). Making decisions abouth placemente In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Taylor & Francis.
  18. Krisel, S. (2012). Characteristics of gifted children as a guide to identification. In S. L. Hunsaker (Ed.), Identification: The theory and practice of identifying students for gifted and talented education services (pp. 75-97). Creative Learning Press.
  19. Kurtz, H. (2019). National Survey of Gifted Education. EdWeek Research Center.
  20. Lee, H., Karakis, N., Olcay Akce, B., Azzam Tuzgen, A., Karami, S., Gentry, M., & Maeda, Y. (2021). A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: Exploring Its Validity Evidence and Effectiveness in Equitably Identifying Gifted Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(3), 199-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986221997800
  21. Lohman, D. F. (2005). Review of Naglieri and Ford (2003): Does the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test identify equal proportions of high-scoring White, Black, and Hispanic students? Gifted Child Quarterly(49), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900103
  22. Lohman, D. F., & Nicpon, M. F. (2012). Ability testing & talent identification. In S. L. Hunsaker (Ed.), Identification: The theory and practice of identifying students for gifted and talented education services (pp. 287-335).
  23. Mariska, M. G. L., Jonathan J. Deeks, Constantine Gatsonis, et al. (2008). Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Annals of Internal Medicine, 149(12), 889-897. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-149-12-200812160-00008 %
  24. McBee, M. T., Peters, S. J., & Miller, E. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698621665625
  25. McClain, M. C., & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted stu- dents in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology,(28), 59-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
  26. Molinero, C., Mata, S., , Calero, M. D., García-Martín, , & M. B., A.-C., A. . (2015). Usefulness of WISC-IV in determining intellectual giftedness. The Spanish journal of psychology, 18(E60). https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.63
  27. Naglieri, J., A., & Ford, D., Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 155-160.
  28. Naglieri, J. A. (1997). Naglieri nonverbal ability test. The Psychological Corporation.
  29. National Association for Gifted Children. (8 de Febrero 2023). Definitions of giftnedness http://www.nagc.org/resources-publi cations/resources/definitions-giftedness
  30. National Association for Gifted Children, & The Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. (2015). 2014-2015 State of the states in gifted education: Policy and practice data. https://docslib.org/doc/8149589/2014-2015-state-of-the-states-in-gifted-education-policy-and-practice-data
  31. Navarro-Saldaña, G., Flores-Oyarzo, G., & González Navarro, M. G. (2022). Estudiantes con alta capacidad: explorando su distribución según tipo de establecimiento educativo. Liberabit, 28(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2022.v28n1.02
  32. Pedersen, B., Makel, M. C., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Peters, S. J., & Plucker, J. (2023). Most Mathematics Classrooms Contain Wide-Ranging Achievement Levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(3), 220-234. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862231166074
  33. Pfeiffer, & Blei. (2008). Gifted identification beyond the IQ test: Rating scales and other assessment procedures. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices, (pp. 177-198).
  34. Pfeiffer, S. I., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Identifying Young Gifted Children Using the Gifted Rating Scales—Preschool/ Kindergarten Form. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207311055
  35. Raven, J. C. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1-48.
  36. Redding, C., & Grissom, J. A. (2021). Do Students in Gifted Programs Perform Better? Linking Gifted Program Participation to Achievement and Nonachievement Outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(3), 520-544. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211008919
  37. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2021). The Three Ring Conception of Giftedness: A Change in Direction from Being Gifted to the Development of Gifted Behaviors. In R. J. Sternberg & D. Ambrose (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness and Talent (pp. 335-355). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-6_19
  38. Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., Westberg, K. L., & Reed, R. E. S. (2021). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students: Renzulli Scales: Technical and Administration Manual. Routledge.
  39. Robles-Guerrero, C. (2022). Estrategias de enriquecimiento extracurricular para alumnos con aptitud intelectual sobresaliente, en una secundaria de Tepozotlán, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos. Morelos, México.
  40. Rodríguez Cervantes, C. J., Valadez Sierra, M. D. L. D., Verche, E., Soltero Avelar, R., , & González Betanzos, F. (2022). Funciones Ejecutivas en alta capacidad intelectual (ACI), trastorno por déficit de atención e hiperactividad (TDAH), doble excepcionalidad (ACI-TDAH) e inteligencia promedio. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 20(58). https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v20i58.4188
  41. Rothenbusch, S., Zettler, I., Voss, T., Lösch, T., & Trautwein, U. (2016). Exploring reference group effects on teachers’ nominations of gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 883. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000085
  42. Ryser, G., R. (2018). Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Assessment. In S. K. Johnsen (Ed.), Identifying gifted students: A practical guide. Prufrock Press Inc.
  43. SEP. (2022). Atención educativa a estudiantes con aptitudes sobresalientes: preescolar, primaria y secundaria. Secretaría de Educación Pública.
  44. Sherman, E. M., Slick, D. J., & Iverson, G. L. (2020). Multidimensional malingering criteria for neuropsychological assessment: A 20-year update of the malingered neuropsychological dysfunction criteria. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35(6), 735-764.
  45. Soto, B. I. C., Ramírez, F. Z., & Tomasini, G. A. (2014). ¿ Quiénes son los alumnos con aptitud sobresaliente? Análisis de diversas variables para su identificación. . Revista Electrónica" Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 14(2), 1-32.
  46. Steenbergen-Hu, S., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Calvert, E. (2020). The Effectiveness of Current Interventions to Reverse the Underachievement of Gifted Students: Findings of a Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 132-165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220908601
  47. Valadez-Sierra, M. D. L. D. (2012). Identificación y evaluación de niños superdotados y talentosos. In M. D. L. D. Valdez Sierra, J. B. Morejón, & M. A. Z. Berbena (Eds.), Alumnos superdotados y talentosos: Identificación, evaluación e intervención. Una perspectiva para docentes. Editorial El Manual Moderno.
  48. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). The on-going dilemma of effective identification practices in gifted education. The Communicator, 31(2), 39-41. https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/the-on-going-dilemma-of-effective-identification-practices-in-gifted-education/
  49. Wechsler, D. (2007). Escala Wechsler de inteligencia para niños-IV(WISC-IV). Editorial El Manual Moderno.
  50. Wilson, J. M. G., Jungner, G., & Organization, W. H. (1968). Principles and practice of screening for disease.
  51. Wu, V., East, P., Delker, E., Blanco, E., Caballero, G., Delva, J., Lozoff, B., & Gahagan, S. (2019). Associations Among Mothers’ Depression, Emotional and Learning-Material Support to Their Child, and Children's Cognitive Functioning: A 16-Year Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 90(6), 1952-1968. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13071

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.