Changes over time and transfer of analogy-problem solving of gifted and non-gifted children in a dynamic testing setting

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of the design.

Condition	Groups		Dynamic/static test
		Raven	Pre-test	Training 1	Training 2	Post-test	Transfer
Dynamic testing	Gifted (n = 22)	X	X	Dynamic training 1	Dynamic training 2	X	X
	Average-ability (n = 47)	X	X	Dynamic training 1	Dynamic training 2	X	X
Unguided practice	Gifted (n = 18)	X	X	Control task	Control task	X	X
	Average-ability (n = 48)	X	X	Control task	Control task	X	X

Figure 1. Example of a difficult analogy item, the correct answer and the instructions provided.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the graduated prompts training protocol.

Figure 3. Sample item of an analogy item used in training 1, including a child’s solutions provided after every prompt.

Table 2. Basic statistics of the analogical measurements, divided by condition and ability group.

			Dynamic testing			Unguided practice
			Gifted	Average-ability	Total	Gifted	Average-ability	Total
		N	22	47	69	18	48	66
Raven	Accuracy scores	M	49.73	38.94	42.38	49.89	38.69	41.74
		SD	2.51	5.90	7.15	2.78	6.18	7.41
Pre-test	Accuracy scores	M	10.77	5.91	7.46	9.83	7.08	7.83
		SD	4.38	4.14	4.77	4.29	3.71	4.04
	Completion time	M	1267.45	1207.52	1266.63	1331.09	1199.09	1235.09
		SD	302.80	564.37	494.54	367.80	471.58	446.87
Post-test	Accuracy scores	M	15.41	11.83	12.97	11.06	8.27	9.03
		SD	3.42	4.89	4.76	5.13	4.15	4.57
	Solving-time	M	1055.05	1104.34	1088.62	1075.78	1027.42	1040.61
		SD	226.26	329.50	299.65	270.99	325.55	310.34
Transfer	Accuracy scores	M	1.77	1.66	1.62	1.94	1.50	1.70
		SD	.43	.60	.65	.24	.72	.55
	Complexity	M	8.00	7.40	7.59	6.89	5.46	5.85
		SD	3.10	3.31	3.23	2.70	3.36	3.24

Table 3. Results of the repeated measures ANOVAs for the accuracy scores, and completion time.

	Wilks’ λ	F	ηp^2
Accuracy scores
Session	.62	82.09***	.39
Session × Condition	.80	32.39***	.20
Session × Ability group	.99	.76	.01
Session × Condition × Ability group	.99	.84	.01
Completion time
Session	.86	21.75***	.14
Session × Condition	1.00	.49	<.01
Session × Ability group	.99	1.47	.01
Session × Condition × Ability group	1.00	.03	<.01

*** p < .001.

Table 4. Children’s transfer accuracy and difficulty level, divided by condition and ability group.

	Dynamic testing			Unguided practice
	Gifted	Average-ability	Total	Gifted	Average-ability	Total
Inaccurate analogies
Non-analogical	0	0	0	0	2	2
Partial analogical	0	3	3	0	5	5
Accurate analogies
Low difficulty (2–6 transformations)	4	7	11	8	18	26
Medium difficulty (7–9 transformations)	10	16	26	5	16	21
High difficulty (10–16 transformations)	8	20	28	5	8	13

Table 5. Results of the regression analyses for transfer accuracy and difficulty level (correct × transformations).

	b	SE	Exp (β)	χ^2
Accurate analogies^a
Condition	2.16	1.59	8.64	1.83
Ability group	.48	.71	1.61	.45
Condition × Ability group	−2.75*	1.33	.06*	4.29
Post-test accuracy score	.22***	.06	1.25***	11.82
Condition × Post-test accuracy score	.09	.10	1.09	.73
Transfer difficulty^a
Condition	.14	1.07	1.15	.02
Ability group	.30	.48	1.35	.39
Condition × Ability group	−.69	.70	.50	.98
Post-test accuracy score	.16	.05	1.18***	10.91
Condition × Post-test accuracy score	−.01	.07	1.00	.01

* p < .05.

*** p < .001.

^a Ordinal logistic regression.