Quantitative text analysis in gifted and talented research

References

• Anderson, C. A. (1961). Methodology of comparative education. International Review of Education, 7(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01416250
   Google Scholar
• Balestrini, D. P. (2019). Substantiating cultural orientations supportive of high academic achievement: A comparison of cultural products in East Asia and the United States. Granite Bay Books.
   Google Scholar
• Balestrini, D. P., Harder, B., Stöger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2014). Zur Verwendung der Begriffe Begabung, Talent und Hochbegabung: Ergebnisse einer korpuslinguistischen Analyse [The usage of giftedness, talent, and profound giftedness: Results of a corpus-linguistics analysis]. News and Science: Begabtenförderung und Begabungsforschung, 36/37(1/2), 56–59.
   Google Scholar
• Baroni, M. (2009). Distributions in text. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft: Vol. 29.2. Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (Vol. 2, pp. 803–822). de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benoit, K., Watanabe, K., Wang, H., Nulty, P., Obeng, A., & Müller, S. (2022). Calculate keyness statistics. https://rdrr.io/github/quanteda/quanteda.textstat/man/textstat_keyness.html, checked on 9/28/2022.
   Google Scholar
• Benoit, K., Watanabe, K., Wang, H., Nulty, P., Obeng, A., Müller, S., & Matsuo, A. (2018). Quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), 774. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00774
   Google Scholar
• Berg, N. (2005). Non-response bias. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 865–873). Elsevier Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Bernal, E. M. (1974). Gifted Mexican American children: An ethno-scientific perspective. California Journal of Education Research, 25(5), 261–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blei, D. M., and Lafferty, J. D. (2007). A correlated topic model of Science. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 1(1), 10.1214/07-AOAS11410.1214/07-AOAS114.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S. (1985). Generalizations about talent development. In B. S. Bloom & L. A. Sosniak (Eds.), Developing talent in young people (1st ed., pp. 507–549). Ballentine Books.
   Google Scholar
• Bouchard, T. J. (1976). Unobtrusive Measures. Sociological Methods & Research, 4(3), 267–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912417600400301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyd, R. L. (2017). Psychological text analysis in the digital humanities. In S. Hai-Jew (Ed.), Data analytics in digital humanities, multimedia systems, and applications (pp. 161–189). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54499-1_7
   Google Scholar
• Burke, E., III. (2000). Modernity’s histories: Rethinking the Long Nineteenth Century, 1750–1950. UC Berkeley. Essays and Positions. UC World History Workshop. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2k62f464
   Google Scholar
• Chai, Y., & Li, W. (2022). Towards deep learning interpretability: A topic modeling approach. In H. Krcmar, J. Fedorowicz, W. F. Boh, J. M. Leimeister, & S. Wattal (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Information Systems, ICIS 2019. Munich, Germany, December 15–18, 2019. Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2019/data_science/data_science/26
   Google Scholar
• Dai, D. Y. (2009). Essential tensions surrounding the concept of giftedness. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 39–80). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2_3
   Google Scholar
• Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/
   Google Scholar
• Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 159–190. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.2.02dav
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, M. (2010a). The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25(4), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq018
   Google Scholar
• Davies, M. (2010b). The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). https://www.english-corpora.org/coha/.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, M. (2012). Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400-million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora, 7(2), 121–157. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2012.0024
   Google Scholar
• Directive 2019/790 (17 April 2019). On copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC. European Parliament and Council. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/790/oj
   Google Scholar
• Dunning, T. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.
   Google Scholar
• Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & Dubois, D. (2008). Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fellbaum, C. (2006). Wordnet and wordnets. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 665–670). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firth, J. R. (1957/1968). A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. In Philological Society, London (Ed.), Studies in linguistic analysis: Special volume of the Philological Society (pp. 1–32). Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, D. Y., Moore, J. L., & Milner, H. R. (2004). Beyond cultureblindness: A model of culture with implications for gifted education. Roeper review, 27(2), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554297
   Google Scholar
• Fritsche, I., & Linneweber, V. (2006). Nonreactive methods in psychological research. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 189–203). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11383-014
   Google Scholar
• Fu, Q., Zhuang, Y., Gu, J., Zhu, Y., & Guo, X. (2021). Agreeing to disagree: Choosing among eight topic-modeling methods. Big Data Research, 23, article 100173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bdr.2020.100173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerlach, M., Peixoto, T. P., & Altmann, E. G. (2018). A network approach to topic models. Sociological Methods & Research, 4(7), eaaq1360. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaq1360
   Google Scholar
• Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.379
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graeff, T. (2005). Response bias. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 411–418). Elsevier Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. A., Torney-Purta, J., & Azevedo, R. (2010). Empirical evidence regarding relations among a model of epistemic and ontological cognition, academic performance, and educational level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gries, S. T. (2013). Current issues in phraseology. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–166. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09gri
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gries, S. T. (2017). Quantitative corpus linguistics with R: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315746210
   Google Scholar
• Heilemann, M., Luo, L., Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2018). A dictionary-based approach to measure STEM-related communication in online mentoring. The Chronicle of Mentoring & Coaching, 2(1), 440–446.
   Google Scholar
• Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 903–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilbert, S., Coors, S., Kraus, E., Bischl, B., Lindl, A., Frei, M., Wild, J., Krauss, S., Goretzko, D., & Stachl, C. (2021). Machine learning for the educational sciences. Review of Education, 9(3), 901. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics: The Cambridge applied linguistics series. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jockers, M. L., & Thalken, R. (2020). Text analysis with R: For students of literature. In Thomas DeFanti, Anthony Grafton, Thomas E. Levy, Lev Manovich, and Alyn Rockwood (Eds.), Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences Series (2nd ed.). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2022). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Third edition draft. https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/
   Google Scholar
• Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Self as cultural mode of being. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 136–174). Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krauss, H., & Uthemann, E. (1998). Was Bilder erzählen: Die klassischen Geschichten aus Antike und Christentum in der abendländischen Malerei [What the images are telling us: The classical stories of Antiquity and Christendom in Western painting] (4th ed.). C. H. Beck.
   Google Scholar
• Lamba, M., & Madhusudhan, M. (2022). Text mining for information professionals: An uncharted territory. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, D. D., Yang, Y., Rose, T. G., & Li, F. (2004). RCV1: A new benchmark collection for text categorization research. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 5, 361–397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luhn, H. P. (1960). Keyword-in-context index for technical literature (KWIC index). American Documentation, 11(4), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090110403
   Google Scholar
• Lynn, P. (2008). The problem of nonresponse. In E. D. de Leeuw, J. J. Hox, & D. A. Dillman (Eds.), EAM book series. International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 35–55). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Maier, D., Waldherr, A., Miltner, P., Wiedemann, G., Niekler, A., Keinert, A., Pfetsch, B., Heyer, G., Reber, U., Häussler, T., Schmid-Petri, H., & Adam, S. (2018). Applying LDA topic modeling in communication research: Toward a valid and reliable methodology. Communication Methods and Measures, 12(2–3), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1430754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morling, B., & Lamoreaux, M. (2008). Measuring culture outside the head: A meta-analysis of individualism–collectivism in cultural products. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(3), 199–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868308318260
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson, D. R., & Sechrest, L. (1983). Nonreactive measures in psychotherapy outcome research. Clinical Psychology Review, 3(4), 391–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(83)90021-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pechenick, E. A., Danforth, C. M., Dodds, P. S., & Barrat, A. (2015). Characterizing the Google Books corpus: Strong limits to inferences of socio-cultural and linguistic evolution. PLoS One, 10(10), e0137041. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Péladeau, N., & Davoodi, E. 2018. Comparison of latent Dirichlet modeling and factor analysis for topic extraction: A lesson of history. In Ed. T. X. Bui, Proceedings of the 51st Annual Hawaii international Conference on System Sciences, pp. 615–623. January 2–6, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/49965
   Google Scholar
• Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Wong, N. Y. C. (1997). Validity problems comparing values across cultures and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 2(4), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.2.4.329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015). LIWC 2015 Operator’s Manual. Pennebaker Conglomerates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Frazee, J., Lavergne, G. M., Beaver, D. I., & Gong, Q. (2014). When small words foretell academic success: The case of college admissions essays. PLoS One, 9(12), e115844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115844
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollach, I. (2012). Taming textual data: The contribution of corpus linguistics to computer-aided text analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 15(2), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111417451
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raposa, E. B., Rhodes, J., Stams, G. J. J. M., Card, N., Burton, S., Schwartz, S., Sykes, L. A. Y., Kanchewa, S., Kupersmidt, J., & Hussain, S. (2019). The effects of youth mentoring programs: A meta-analysis of outcome studies. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(3), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-00982-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rau, G., & Shih, Y.-S. (2021). Evaluation of Cohen’s kappa and other measures of inter-rater agreement for genre analysis and other nominal data. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 53, article 101026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive science, 21(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2101_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozin, P. (2003). Five potential principles for understanding cultural differences in relation to individual differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00566-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadeghi, Z., McClelland, J. L., & Hoffman, P. (2015). You shall know an object by the company it keeps: An investigation of semantic representations derived from object co-occurrence in visual scenes. Neuropsychologia, 76, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.08.031
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, S. H. (2014). Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113490830
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Short, J. C., Broberg, J. C., Cogliser, C. C., & Brigham, K. H. (2010). Construct validation using computer-aided text analysis (CATA). Organizational Research Methods, 13(2), 320–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109335949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidorov, G. (2019). Syntactic n-grams in computational linguistics. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14771-6
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1992). The social context of career success and course for 2,026 scientists and inventors. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(4), 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292184009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sperber, D. 1996. Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J., & Zhang, L.-F. (1995). What do we mean by giftedness? A pentagonal implicit theory. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629503900205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoeger, H., Balestrini, D. P., & Ziegler, A. (2021). Key issues in professionalizing mentoring practices. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1483(1), 5–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14537
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoeger, H., Heilemann, M., Debatin, T., Hopp, M. D. S., Schirner, S., & Ziegler, A. (2021). Nine years of online mentoring for secondary school girls in STEM: An empirical comparison of three mentoring formats. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1483(1), 153–173. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14476
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. In Language in society. Vol. 23. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Atteveldt, W., van der Velden, M. A. C. G., & Boukes, M. (2021). The validity of sentiment analysis: Comparing manual annotation, crowd-coding, dictionary approaches, and machine learning algorithms. Communication Methods and Measures, 15(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1869198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., Sechrest, L., & Grove, J. B. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Worrell, F. C., & Dixson, D. D. (2018). Recruiting and retaining underrepresented gifted students. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 209–226). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ylijoki, O., & Porras, J. (2016). Perspectives to definition of big data: A mapping study and discussion. Journal of Innovation Management, 4(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_004.001_0006
   Google Scholar
• Ziegler, A., Balestrini, D. P., & Stoeger, H. (2018). An international view on gifted education: Incorporating the macro-systemic perspective. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 15–28). Springer.
   Google Scholar