Group Intellectual Test (GIT): Standardization of the Methodology of Mental Development of Primary School Children

The paper presents the results of the standardization of the methodology for mental development diagnostic of primary school children Group intellectual test (GIT). The methodology consists of 7 subtests, which are devoted to various aspects of the intelligence. 2512 children studying in the 4th grade (M=9,97 years, SD=0,41), 51,1% boys were recruited for this study. The Cronbach's Alpha consistency score was used to assess the internal consistency of the subtests, which showed good consistency of all elements of the methodology (Cronbach's Alpha=0,9). Exploratory factor analysis confirmed that all 7 subtests add up to one factor explaining 63,4% of the total variance. The general model of the questionnaire was tested using confirmatory factor analysis, which showed good data consistency: SRMR=0,02; CMIN/df=13,09; GFI=0,98; IFI=0,98; CFI=0,98; RMSEA=0,07.

Introduction

The relevance of standardizing the Russian version of the Group Intellectual Test (GIT) on a sample of primary school students is determined by the needs of psychological services in education in valid and reliable tools for assessing the developmental potential of the educational program of primary general education, which is especially important for overcoming learning difficulties [Izotova, 2024; Isaev, 2023; Kosaretsky]. The Federal Educational Standard of Primary General Education (FSES PGE) rightly prioritizes the cognitive development of students, since researchers unanimously emphasize scientific, theoretical, and reflexive thinking as the most important new formation of junior schoolchildren's development [Berlyand, 1997; Bruner Dzh. Kul`tura, 2006; Vygotskij, 1982; Davydov, 1996; D`yui Dzh. Demokratiya, 2000; Tsigichko, 2023; E`l`konin, 1989].

In the FSES PGE cognitive development of students is represented by three groups of cognitive universal learning actions: basic logical, research, and work with information. Each of the groups of cognitive actions includes a set of intellectual actions and operations realized on the material of various academic subjects. The Group Intellectual Test allows assessing the formation of intellectual operations included in each of the groups of cognitive universal learning actions.

The task of assessing educational outcomes is set by the FSES PGE. The Standard states: “The results of mastering the program of primary general education, including a separate part or the whole volume of a subject, academic course (including extracurricular activities), academic module of the program of primary general education, are subject to evaluation taking into account the specifics and characteristics of the subject of evaluation” [Federal`naya obrazovatel`naya programma, 2023]. [Federal`naya obrazovatel`naya programma, 2023].

The Federal Educational Program for Primary General Education (FEP PGE) provides a detailed description of the system for assessing the achievement of planned outcomes of the educational program. It is noted that the system of assessing the achievement of planned outcomes is part of the system of assessment and management of the quality of education in the educational organization and serves as a basis for the development of the relevant local act by the educational organization. As one of the main directions and goals of assessment activities in the educational organization, the assessment of educational achievements of students at different stages of education as the basis for their interim and final certification, as well as the basis for the procedures of internal monitoring of the educational organization, monitoring studies at the municipal, regional and federal levels is defined.

It is specified that the evaluation system includes internal and external evaluation procedures. Internal assessment includes: initial diagnostics, current and thematic assessment, portfolio, psychological and pedagogical observation, internal monitoring of students' educational achievements. External evaluation includes: independent assessment of the quality of education, monitoring studies of municipal, regional and federal levels [Federal`ny`j gosudarstvenny`j obrazovatel`ny`j, 2021]. We believe that GIT can act as a tool for both internal and external assessment of educational results of primary education.

The Group Intellectual Test has undergone the standardization procedure for diagnosing the formation of meta-subject educational results, the degree of mastering by elementary school students of certain intellectual operations included in the group of universal educational cognitive actions: basic logical, research, work with information. The choice of grade 4 as a sample of standardization is determined primarily by practical needs. The obtained results of cognitive development diagnostics can be used in the work of a teacher-psychologist in solving the following tasks: prevention of risks of school failure, identification of the causes of learning difficulties and the development of an individual program of overcoming them by a teacher-psychologist together with a teacher, determination of the zone of the nearest development of a student and the forecast of his/her further development, development of programs of psychological and pedagogical support in the transition of students to the main level of general education.

The GIT was developed to diagnose the cognitive development of students aged 9-12 years (junior schoolchildren and junior adolescents). The test was developed by Slovak psychologist J. Vana. Translation of the test and adaptation to the Russian sample were carried out by psychologists M.K. Akimova, E.M. Borisova, V.T. Kozlova, G.P. Loginova under the supervision of K.M. Gurevich. The reliability and validity of the adapted version of diagnostics were confirmed by statistical indicators [Loginova, 2007]. The need for this standardization is determined by the introduction of the new federal standard, the federal educational program of primary general education, the unified didactic system “School of Russia” for elementary school. In addition, in the modern world, online questionnaires are increasingly introduced, which simplify data collection and make the sample more diverse (due to the results from different regions) and, as a consequence, more representative.

The GIT diagnostic test (see Appendix) is aimed at identifying the students' mastery of words and concepts offered to them in the tasks, as well as the ability to perform logical actions with them. The test includes seven subtests, each of which is given a certain period of time (from 1.5 to 6 minutes). Each subtest consists of a certain number of questions (from 20 to 200). The questions within a subtest are aimed at a certain skill and are quite homogeneous, therefore, considering the time constraints, they are not analyzed separately.

1. “Execution of instructions” - is aimed at studying formal-dynamic characteristics of thought processes. The performance of this subtest depends on the speed capabilities in thinking and speech activity: the ability to quickly perceive an instruction and accurately perform a simple task. The subtest consists of 20 tasks.
2. “Arithmetic tasks” - determines the degree of learning skills given by mathematics. The subtest consists of 20 tasks and requires performing simple arithmetic operations when solving problems: oral counting, performing a variety of arithmetic operations, finding a part of a whole, determining the percentage of a number.
3. “Completing sentences” is a test of the examinee's vocabulary, his/her ability to correctly and logically construct sentences using different syntactic structures. The subtest contains 20 sentences in each of which one or two words are missing. The student must extract the meaning of each sentence and fill in the blanks with the appropriate words.
4. “Determination of similarity and difference of concepts” - diagnoses the formation of the comparison operation and awareness of the concepts of different content. This subtest is a set of 40 pairs of words, which the learner is asked to examine and determine whether the words in each pair are similar or different. For example, “quiet-calm”.
5. “Numerical series” - provides an opportunity to identify aptitudes for mathematical disciplines. In this subtest 20 tasks are given, in which the student needs to discover the rule (algorithm) of building a number series and, applying the identified rule, to continue the series with two numbers.
6. “Analogies” - reveals the dynamics of age-related changes in the development of thinking of schoolchildren. The subtest includes 40 tasks, when performing which the student needs to perform a number of thinking operations: comparing two words, establishing a logical relationship between them, analyzing the third word and the words from which to make a choice, selecting a word by analogy.
7. “Symbols” - aimed at identifying the speed characteristic in thinking and speech activity. The subtest, according to the authors, is characteristically different from the previous ones. The learner is asked to identify the digit that is under each symbol in the key and fill in the free spaces in the horizontal stanzas. In this subtest, special accuracy and speed of task performance are required, as the examinee is given 200 tasks with nine occurring symbols.

This test provides the possibility of individual and group presentation. The subtests of this diagnostic show differentiating power and are aimed at studying different aspects of mental development of students.

Sampling and standardization procedure for the adapted version of the questionnaire

Sampling. The study involved 2512 students from different regions of the Russian Federation (Lipetsk, Volgograd and Samara regions, Republic of Tatarstan and Chuvash Republic). All participants were 4th grade students (mean age=9.97±0.41 years), 51.1% were boys. Considering the specifics of the test, namely, time limitation, the data often contained blank answers for which the examinees did not have enough time and which, according to the methodology, are counted as incorrect. If a subtest was not completed, it was assumed that the participant did not take the subtest. Thus, 2,342 students completed the VIT questionnaire in full, and statistical indicators were calculated with pairwise exclusion.

Procedure. The study was conducted in 2022 online in the Anketolog system. Study participants were presented with the VIT methodology (Form A) [Loginova, 2007] and standard social-demographic questions (gender, age). Testing was conducted in the classroom by a teacher or educational psychologist in strict accordance with the classical instruction. The only difference was that the material was offered to students not on a printed form, but in an online questionnaire on a computer. The transition to the corresponding pages, the beginning and the end of each subtest were carried out according to the instructions. The data are presented in the repository of psychological studies and instruments of the Moscow State Psychological and Pedagogical University RusPsyDATA [Isaev, 2024].

Results and Discussion

Cronbach's α score was used to assess the internal consistency of the questionnaire. The GIT questionnaire showed excellent internal consistency (standardized Cronbach's Alpha=0.90), indicating the necessity of each subtest in the methodology. Descriptive statistics for subtests and total score of the questionnaire are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Cronbach's Alpha values for subtests and total GIT questionnaire score

Cronbach's Alpha calculated for each subtest separately also showed high internal consistency of all subtests of the questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis showed that the 7 subscales add up to a single factor that explains 63.4% of the total variance. This is also evidenced by rather strong correlations between the subtests of the questionnaire (Table 2).

 Table 2.

Note: ** – level p≤0,01.

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the model of the questionnaire, based on the results of which we can conclude that the model fits the data well: SRMR=0.02; CMIN/df=13.1; GFI=0.98; IFI=0.98; CFI=0.98; RMSEA=0.072 [0.063; 0.081]. The structure of the questionnaire is presented in the figure below.

Fig. CFA results: structure of the questionnaire with seven subtests

A CFA was also conducted to evaluate the model of each subtest. The results showed good structure for subtests 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and satisfactory for subtest 4. The model quality data are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Results of confirmatory factor analysis for each of the subtests of the methodology

Invariance analyses were conducted to test the model across gender and age. The main objective of the analysis is to check that there are no differences in the questionnaire models for different groups (configural invariance), no differences in the factor loadings of items for different groups (metric invariance), and no differences between the contributions of different subscales to the outcome variable for different groups (scalar invariance). For each variable under study (gender, age), all 3 types of invariance were calculated, which showed that the GIT questionnaire exhibited complete invariance at all three levels in both gender and age comparisons. The results of invariance analysis are presented in Table 4.

Invariance analysis of the GIT model

Note:* – p<0,01.

A two-factor analysis of variance was conducted to assess differences in the sex and age structure of the GIT questionnaire. The main effect of the variable ‘gender’ was statistically insignificant (F(1,2320)=0.14; p=0.706). Despite a statistically significant interaction between sex and age (F(2,2320)=5.20; p=0.0056) and the main effect of the variable ‘age’ (F(2,2320)=24.32; p<0.0001), the magnitude of the effects was quite small (eta-squared=0.004 and 0.021, respectively). When analysed by subtest, effect sizes were also extremely small (eta-squared≤0.02). Thus, we can conclude that there are no differences between study participants according to gender and age on our questionnaire. Based on these results, we can identify uniform norms for 4th grade schoolchildren regardless of gender. For this purpose, we calculated stanines based on the 4th, 11th, 23rd, 40th, 60th, 77th, 89th and 96th percentiles, which are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. GIT normative values for 4th grade students

For ease of use, it is common to stop at 3 levels: low, medium and high. We would recommend to separate the 3rd stanine separately into the level ‘Closer to Normal’, so that there would be some gap between the result ‘Normal’ and ‘Low level of intelligence’ for a more relaxed attitude of parents to the child's test results. Thus, the authors propose the interpretation of the results presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Results of the GIT methodology for 4th grade students

The obtained results agree well with the norms of the original questionnaire. The original questionnaire has norms for 3rd grade (normal level 70-90) and for 5th grade pupils (normal level 80-100), which are quite close to those we obtained for 4th grade pupils. It should be noted that the authors of the original questionnaire give a very small interval for the norm, but also single out separately the ‘level close to normal’, similar, in fact, to ours. The high level is estimated in the original questionnaire as more than 90 and 100 points for 3rd and 5th graders respectively, which is fully consistent with our high level for 4th grade pupils.

Conclusion

The standardisation of the adapted electronic version of the GIT questionnaire, which allows assessing the formation of intellectual operations of cognitive universal learning actions, has been carried out. According to the results of the work, it can be stated that the electronic version of the GIT questionnaire has good psychometric properties and can be used to assess the intellectual abilities of young schoolchildren.

1. Berlyand I.E. Uchebnaya deyatel'nost' v shkole razvivayushchego obucheniya i shkole dialoga kul'tur [Educational activity at the school of developmental education and the school of dialogue of cultures]. Diskurs = Discourse, 1997, no. 3–4, pp. 117–142. (In Russ.).
2. Bruner Dzh. Kul`tura obrazovaniya [Culture of education]. Moscow: Prosveshhenie, 2006. 213 p. (In Russ.).
3. Vygotskij L.S. Sobranie sochinenij: V 6-ti t. T. 2. Problemy obshchej psihologii [Problems of general psychology]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1982. 504 p. (In Russ.).
4. Davydov V.V. Teoriya razvivayushchego obucheniya [Theory of developing learning]. Moscow: Intor, 1996. 544 p. (In Russ.).
5. D`yui Dzh. Demokratiya i obrazovanie. Per. s angl. [Democracy and education]. Moscow: Pedagogika_Press, 2000. 384 p. (In Russ.).
6. Izotova E.I., Molchanova G.V., Avdulova T.P., Khuzeeva G.R., Radchikova N.P. Metodologicheskoe obosnovanie mezhdistsiplinarnogo kompleksa diagnostiki fizicheskogo i psikhicheskogo razvitiya detei kak instrumenta vyyavleniya riskov osvoeniya obrazovatel'nykh programm doshkol'nogo obrazovaniya [Methodological Substantiation of the Interdisciplinary Complex of Diagnostics of Physical and Mental Development of Children as a Tool for Identifying the Risks of Mastering Educational Programs of Preschool Education]. Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoy kultury, 2024, no. 1(1027), p. 88–90. (In Russ., а in Engl.).
7. Isaev E.I., Margolis A.A. Trudnosti v obuchenii: diagnostika, profilaktika, preodolenie [Learning Difficulties: Diagnosis, Prevention, Overcoming]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2023. Vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 7–20. DOI:10.17759/pse.2023280501
8. Isaev E.I., Safronova M.A., Sorokova M.G., Radchikov A.S. Gruppovoi intellektual'nyi test (GIT): Nabor dannykh. RusPsyData: Repozitorii psikhologicheskikh issledovanii i instrumentov. [Group Intelligence Test (GIT): Dataset. RusPsyData: Repository of psychological research and instruments]. Moscow, 2024. DOI:10.48612/MSUPE/79ex-emkg-ezzd
9. Kosaretsky S.G. Obrazovatel'naja politika Rossijskoj Federacii postsovetskogo perioda v otnoshenii trudnostej v obuchenii i ravenstva obrazovatel'nyh vozmozhnostej [Educational Policy Of The Russian Federation Post-Soviet Period Regarding Learning Difficulties And Equity In Education]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, Vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 21–33. DOI:10.17759/pse.2023280502
10. Loginova G.P. Diagnostika umstvennogo razvitiya detej mladshego podrostkovogo vozrasta [Diagnostics of mental development of children of early adolescence]. Moscow, 2007. 34 p. (In Russ.).
11. Federal`ny`j gosudarstvenny`j obrazovatel`ny`j standart nachal`nogo obshhego obrazovaniya [Federal State Educational Standard of Primary General Education]. 2021. URL: https://edsoo.ru/normativnye-dokumenty/ (In Russ.).
12. Federal`naya obrazovatel`naya programma nachal`nogo obshhego obrazovaniya [Federal educational program of primary general education]. 2023. URL: https://edsoo.ru/normativnye-dokumenty/ (In Russ.).
13. Tsigichko E.A. Sravnitel'nyi analiz sformirovannosti kognitivnykh protsessov u mladshikh podrostkov s vysokim i nizkim urovnem razvitiya neverbal'nogo intellekta [Comparative Analysis of the Formation of Cognitive Processes in Younger Adolescents with High and Low Levels of Nonverbal Intelligence]. Obshchestvo: sotsiologiya, psikhologiya, pedagogika [Society: Sociology, Psychology, Pedagogics], 2023, no. 8, p. 94–99. DOI:10.24158/spp.2023.8.12 (In Russ., а in Engl.).
14. E`l`konin D.B. Izbranny`e psixologicheskie trudy` [Selected psychological works]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1989. 560 p. (In Russ.).