Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T03:37:30.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory-based cognitive tasks for the identification of intellectually gifted students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

Lazar Stankov
Lazar Stankov*
Affiliation:
The University of Sydney
*
Department of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2006
Get access

Abstract

This paper argues that there is an inadequate supply of psychological tests that can be used for the assessment of intellectually gifted students. New psychological tests should be constructed for these purposes. The theories of experimental cognitive psychology which emphasize the role of capacity limitations and the importance of the construct of complexity provide a useful framework for the development of such new tests. Particularly promising has been the work with competing tasks, with tasks that place an increasing demandon the central processor (or working memory), and with tasks that systematically vary complexity and difficulty. Several examples of these new tasks are described.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , November 1993 , pp. 16 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogarty, G., & Stankov, L. (1982). Competing tasks as an index of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 407–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogarty, G., & Stankov, L. (1988). Abilities involved in performance on competing tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J.P. (1985). The structure of intellect model. In Wolman, B.B. (Ed.) Handbook of intelligence (pp. 225–266). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Humphreys, L.G. (1979). The construct of general intelligence. Intelligence, 3, 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotovsky, K., & Simon, H.A. (1973). Empirical tests of a theory of human acquisition of concepts for sequential patterns. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 399–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myors, B., Stankov, L., & Oliphant, G.W. (1989). Competing tasks, working memory and intelligence. Australian Journal of Psychology, 41, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L. (1983a). Attention and intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 471–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L. (1983b). The role of competition in human abilities revealed through auditory tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research Monographs, No. 83–1, pp. 63 & VII.Google Scholar
Stankov, L. (1987). Competing tasks and attentional resources: Exploring the limits of primary-secondary paradigm. Australian Journal of Psychology, 39, 2123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L. (1988a). Aging, intelligence and attention. Psychology and Aging, 3, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L. 1988b). Single tests, competing tasks, and their relationship to the broad factors of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L. (1989). Attentional resources and intelligence: A disappearing link. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 957–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L. (1994). The Complexity Effect Phenomenon in aging is an epiphenomenon. Personality and Individual Differences. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L., Boyle, G., & Cattell, R.B. (1994). Models and paradigms in intelligence research. Chapter to appear in Saklofske, D. & Zaidner, M. (Eds.) International handbook of personality and intelligence. Plenum Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Stankov, L., & Crawford, J.D. (1993). Ingredients of complexity in fluid intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 5(2), 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L., & Cregan, A. (1993). Quantitative and qualitative properties of an intelligence test: Series Completion. Learning and lndividual Differences, 5(2), 137–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L., Fogarty, G., & Watt, C. (1989). Competing tasks: Predictors of managerial potential. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankov, L., & Myors, B. (1990). The relationship between working memory and intelligence: Regression and COSAN analyses. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1059–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, G.H. (1939). The factorial analysis of human ability. London: University of London Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar