MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7023468996

Parents' perceptions of giftedness

2000· other· en· W7023468996 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2000
Typeother
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101DysgeusiaDiafiltrationLiquationEmperipolesisTriacetinDurvalumab
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine parental perceptions of giftedness in young children. Specifically, the process by which parents came to believe that their young child is gifted, how they conceptualized the term giftedness, the impact of having a gifted child, and the concerns that they had were examined. In addition, parental perceptions of giftedness were compared to the results obtained from three other estimates of gifted performance based on the WPPSI-R IQ test, the PRIDE creativity inventory, and expert opinion. A multiple case study was conducted with the participation of six young children and their parents. The participants were self-selected from members or associates of a gifted organization, based upon the belief of at least one parent that their child is gifted. Themes that emerged from the evidence collected from semi-structured interviews were collected and analyzed using grounded theory procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Results were reported in three ways. Themes that emerged across the cases were grouped into categories, with negative cases and gender differences between the parents noted. An illustrative case study was used to describe how the themes appeared within the context of one family. Parents' perceptions of their child's giftedness were compared to the three measures of giftedness. There were five key findings. First, parents determined their child was gifted by observing him/her and by comparing their child to peers. This judgement also was informed by parents applying three other criteria: a) the child's ability to learn, b) their exceptional memory, and c) their early development. Second, the conceptualization of giftedness was gender based with most mothers stating that giftedness is an integral part of their child and most fathers compartmentalizing giftedness, linking it to having an exceptional memory. Third, the gifted child was perceived to have a much greater impact on the family, demanding more time and nurturing, than a child of average ability. Fourth, five out of six of the children had school adjustment problems. All of the participating parents were concerned about how their child would adjust to the school environment. Fifth, agreement between parental perceptions of giftedness and the three measures of giftedness were mixed. Two children scored above 120 on the WPPSI-R, which is a common criterion for admission to gifted programs; however, the others did not meet this criterion. The results from the WPPSI-R IQ test were called into question, however, because five of the six children did not reach the discontinuation criteria for at least five of the subtests. Four scored high on the PRIDE creativity measure, and three were considered gifted by the expert panel, resulting in five of the six children being found to be advanced by at least one measure. Recommendations for future research included not using the WPPSI-R on the young gifted population, comparing perceptions of parents of the gifted to parents of children of average ability, and examining whether gifted parents are under stress and if so, what their coping mechanisms are. In addition, research on the school adjustment problems of the gifted could target a main focus of concern for the parents in this study, and have practical benefits in helping parents and educators anticipate and perhaps alleviate some of the difficult time these children have in fitting into the school environment.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,482
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,958

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0160,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,003
Tête enseignante GPT0,151
Écart entre enseignants0,148 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Travaux en français237 207→