zbornik 2012. psiholoski profil darovitih podbacivaca.pdf

7/23/2019 Zbornik 2012. Psiholoski profil darovitih podbacivaca.pdf

1/39

*, **

*

:

1

...it is the premise of this discussion that the most promising route tosatisfaction and joy in experience is through productive, sustained, effective efforts

toward deep mastery of a domain that has value,

both to the individual and to those who share the environment with thatindividual.

(David Henry Feldman, A developmental,

evolutionary perspective on giftedness)

* ,

** ,

1 ,

, ( 20112014, . 179018).


2/39

144 | :

,

- . , - - (Feldhusen, 2001; Ford, 1993);, , 1540% (Seeley, 1993, Clemons, 2008),

50% - (NCEE, 1984, Clemons, 2008; Richert, 1991, Peters, Grager-Loidl, & Supplee, 2000). 1993. , - (U.S. Department ofEducation, 1993, Rayneri, Gerber, & Wiley, 2006). , NationalResearch Center on the Gifted and Talented - - - (Renzulli, Reid, & Gubbins, 1992).

, , , . - - . , (Altaras, 2006; Altaras Dimitrijevi &Mijatovi, 2010; Jovanovi, Teovanovi, Mentus i Petrovi, 2010; Altaras

Dimitrijevi & Juri, 2011). , , - / . , - , .

.

,


3/39

: | 145

. , , -

- ( ), , ( ), .

:

?

, . - - . ,underachievement, 1952,2 -

(Terman & Oden, 1947). - -; , - , / ( ) (Altaras, 2006; Dowdall & Colangelo, 1982;Reis & McCoach,

2000). -

:3

, , ,. .

2 underachiever Merriam-Webster Online.

3 , , -, .


4/39

146 | :

, (-

) , / -.

, , . - , - - , ,

, . , , : , , ( ) - , . , , - (: 5) .

? ,

; , , , - : -?

, , , : , - , , ,

; , - ( .Vock, Gauck & Vogl, 2010). - , (Mayer, 2005), - .

- , , , - , , ,

-


5/39

: | 147

. , - (Altaras, 2006; ),

: - , , , ( , , , , ). , , , -, , , .

, - , , ? - 4 : - ( ), ( )

, . , , - , .

( )?

, , , . - - , - .

4 , , . 72/09,

, , , . 76/10.


6/39

148 | :

, , - - (Kanevsky & Keighly, 2003; Reis & McCoach, 2000).

, - () () ; -, , (Reis, 1998, Reis & McCoach, 2000), : () ?

-, ( - ).

, , - , - . , - (Rimm, 1996, . 58) -/ .

, , ( ) ; , - , - .

, ,

; , , () (Altaras, 2006) : ?

- / - (Colangelo & Assouline, 2000).

, , () ; , , , - .


7/39

: | 149

( )?

- (Whitmore, 1980), - ( -) ( Altaras, 2006). - (Baker, Bridger, & Evans, 1998) : , ,

, .5

6 (- 6.1.) - / ( , , ). , , - , , ,

; , , , , , .

( ) - ( . Baker et al., 1998;Baum, Renzulli, & Hbert, 1995; Daz, 1998; Hbert, 2001; Reis, Hbert,Diaz, Maxfield, & Ratley, 1995), - , .7

5 , , .

6 , (2006).

7 , (Ba-ker et al., 1998). , ,

, (Ford, 1992).


8/39

150 | :

6.1.:

-

(Clemons, 2008), (Colangelo, Kerr, Christensen, & Maxey, 1993; Dowdall &Colangelo, 1982; Matthews & McBee, 2007; Wolfle, 1991), - (Baker et al., 1998; Hoekman, McCormick, & Gross,1999), (Colangelo et al., 1993). , -, :

(. /, -/), - , - , , (Daz, 1998; Hbert, 2001;Reis et al., 1995; Rimm & Lowe, 1988); - (Baum

et al., 1995; Hbert, 2001; Reis et al., 1995; Rimm, 2008).


9/39

: | 151

, - .

, -

, ( ) (), () - / (Arceneaux, 1990, Colangelo et al., 1993; Butler-Por, 1987; Dowdall& Colangelo, 1982).

, / -

- , : - , , () -, , , , - /, , , ( . Clemons, 2008; Baker et al., 1998; Baumet al., 1995; Daz, 1998; Reis et al., 1995; Perleth & Sierwald, 2001; Rimm,2008; Supplee, 1990); , -

() - (Colangelo et al., 1993; Ford, 1995; Matthews & McBee,2007; McCoach & Siegle, 2003a, 2003b).

, / ; - ( . Peters et al., 2000),

, , - (Reis & McCoach, 2000). , - , - (Redding, 1990) - - (Colangeloet al., 1993)8.

8

() (Colangelo et al., 1993).


10/39

152 | :

- -

. , - : (1) , (2) ( ), (3) / ( ). - .

:

,

( ), . - , . - , .9

,

- : - - ( ) ; , - - .

9

(Marecek, 2003), . .


11/39

: | 153

, : -

(Altaras, 2006), (AltarasDimitrijevi i Mijatovi, 2010), - (Jovanovi i sar., 2010).

, , -: (1) ; (2) - ; (3) - ,

- ( / ), - - (. , , ); (4) , - ; (5) , -, , , .

- ( / -) . , ; (1) - , (2) (/, - /), (3) - .

, - (Altaras, 2006) ( / /-) 1230 ( 62,6% 37,4% ), 77 79 ; - (Altaras Dimitrijevi i Mijatovi, 2010), 318 -

(62,6% 37,4% ),


12/39

154 | :

39, 40; (Jovanovi i sar., 2010), - 434 (59,8% 40,2% ),

81 26 - .

, 20% ; , - , - 75. . ( ), : , ; , (. , 50% , 50% ); , (2010) 10%

, - .

, - , - (1988) 3 (Wolf,Momirovi i Damonja, 1992); , - 3 4 ( ) ; , -

(Bujas, 1971), 4 5 (- - ). - . , - . , - : II , III -, III , - III III . -


13/39

: | 155

III , III IV ,

- .

:

, - . , ( ),

, , .

(Altaras, 2006), - () , . , : (1) , ,

, 10 - , NEO-PI-R (uri-Joi,Damonja-Ignjatovi i Kneevi, 2004)11; (2) -, . , , - , PEP- (Psycho-Epistemologcal Profile,. PEP; Royce, Mos, &Kearsly, 1975); (3) , , - (Preconscious Activity

Scale, . PAS;Holland & Baird, 1968); (4) , - -, (TellegenAbsorption Scale, . TAS;Tellegen & Atkinson, 1974); (5) . / / - (Toronto Alexithymia

10 : Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to experience (O), Agree-

ableness (A), Conscientiousness (C).11 .


14/39

156 | :

Scale, . TAS20;Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994) - - ( ).

(2010), - (BSRI;Bem, 1974).12

, (2010) . , : (1) -, -, -, , - (Self-Concept Questionnaire; Waugh, 2001); (2) , , , , , , SAAS-R(School Attitude Assessment SurveyRevised; McCoach & Siegle, 2003);(3) , (4) ,

- (Teovanovi, 2011).

- , - (.

) !13 , - .

12 , , - .

13 , -, -. , ,

, , , - , (Jovanovi i sar., 2010).


15/39

: | 157

- , . ,

(), - ( 6.1.). , ( 6.2.).14 - , (genus proximum) (differentia specifica). ,

, - .

1: ?

- . :

() , - - . , - - - , . -

, , . 6.1. .

14 6.1. 6.2. . - t- , d-, - [d=(M

1-M

2)/

SD)]; , 0,2 , 0,5

, 0,8 - (Cohen, 1969).


16/39

158 | :

6.1. t-

N M SD N M SD t df sig d

- -

96 1,44 4,22 218 3,21 4,30 3,39 312 0,00 0,42

NEO-PI-R

2. 156 26,17 5,90 359 28,12 5,69 2,39 513 0,00 0,34

5. 156 32,81 5,43 359 29,62 6,02 2,45 513 0,00 0,55

6. 156 30,03 3,92 359 28,46 3,61 1,90 513 0,00 0,42

6. 156 27,70 4,69 359 28,74 3,76 1,94 513 0,01 0,26

**

154 17,28 5,14 358 18,94 5,91 2,43 510 0,00 0,29

. ** 154 16,77 4,28 358 18,37 4,50 2,12 510 0,00 0,36

* N ; M ; SD ; t t--; df ; sig ; d d-

** , - .

, - , ( , d=0,36) ( , d=0,29). , -, -

(, d=0,55) , (, d=0,42). , (, d=0,34) ( , d=0,22) . , (, d=0,42).

, , - ; -


17/39

: | 159

, - / .

2: ?

6.2. .

(d=0,38), - - . , -

, , . - (, d=0,37), (, d=0,37). , - - (d=0,33), - (d=0,46). (d=0,48), -

, , /. , , , - , - (, d=0,33).

, ( , d=0,36), (d=0,49), . , , ( p


18/39

160 | :

, d=0,83) , ( , d=1,13). -

- (d=0,91), - (d=0,37). , (-, d=0,63). (, d=0,56), ( , d=1,44; , d=1,70), (d=0,62). , -

( -, d=1,51; -, d=1,24).

: (d=0,65), (d=0,57).

, , (d=0,34), -, , (-, d=0,42).

6.2. t-

o

.

/ N M SD N M SD t df sig d

SAAS-R

26 4,71 0,89 81 5,83 0,92 5,45 105 0,00 1,24

26 3,14 1,07 81 3,98 1,21 3,17 105 0,00 0,72

26 4,41 1,29 81 5,40 1,18 3,64 105 0,00 0,83

26 3,03 1,17 81 4,44 1,28 4,97 105 0,00 1,13


19/39

: | 161

.

--

26 1,75 0,42 78 2,46 0,52 6,29 102 0,00 1,44

26 0,87 0,63 78 1,99 0,68 7,44 102 0,00 1,70

-

26 1,26 0,79 78 1,65 0,57 2,73 102 0,01 0,62

-

26 1,32 0,47 78 2,04 0,48 6,60 102 0,00 1,51

NEO-PI-R

79 186,1 20,1 77 178,3 20,8 4,57 154 0,02 0,38

79 154,5 25,6 77 162,3 20,1 4,48 154 0,04 0,34

79 155,2 23,5 77 176,6 23,7 4,87 154 0,00 0,91

NEO-PI-R

N5. 79 26,89 4,91 77 25,16 4,47 2,11 154 0,02 0,371. 79 32,73 6,05 77 30,47 6,14 2,48 154 0,02 0,37

2. 79 31,66 5,98 77 29,42 6,11 2,47 154 0,02 0,37

2. 79 26,35 6,15 77 28,70 5,11 2,26 154 0,01 0,42

C1. 79 28,96 4,31 77 31,31 4,12 2,03 154 0,00 0,56

C2. 79 23,86 4,97 77 26,19 5,54 2,35 154 0,01 0,45

C3. 79 28,75 4,86 77 32,62 4,52 2,13 154 0,00 0,83

C4. 79 27,51 5,17 77 31,39 4,78 2,19 154 0,00 0,78

C5. 79 23,87 5,8 77 29,08 5,76 2,40 154 0,00 0,91

C6. 79 22,27 6,17 77 25,97 5,66 2,38 154 0,00 0,63

PEP 79 0,35 0,80 77 0,08 0,84 0,92 154 0,04 0,33

PAS

78 25,29 7,15 76 22,12 6,14 2,48 152 0,00 0,48

TAS

( )

79 3,67 0,69 76 3,43 0,77 0,88 153 0,05 0,33

S2. 79 24,54 5,72 76 21,82 6,08 2,47 153 0,00 0,46

( ) 79 72,33 16,74 76 66,64 15,09 3,88 153 0,03 0,36

-

79 31,24 6,47 76 28,07 6,45 2,54 153 0,00 0,49

BSRI7

() 18 92,60 12,19 16 99,52 9,41 1,84 32 0,08 0,65

() 22 99,36 10,41 23 92,42 14,26 1,86 53 0,07 0,57

() 22 98,73 7,05 23 93,22 7,86 2,47 53 0,02 0,75

* N ; M ; SD ; t t--; df ; sig ; d d-


20/39

162 | :

, , -.

, -. , - ( ).

3: ?

, , - -

-.

, : (1) - , -, (NEO-PI-R); (2) , - (NEO-PI-R); (3) - (SAAS-R); (4) ,

(BSRI). -, , , - . ,

, , -, , , , , , .

: (1) , - ( - ); (2)

,


21/39

: | 163

, - , -

; (3) - (; SAAS-R), -/ (NEO-PI-R), ; (4) , - , ( ). ? -

-, . : , - . ( ) - .15

-

: (1) , - , (NEO-PI-R);(2) , - (PAS) , - ,, (TAS); (3)

(PEP); (4) , , (NEO-PI-R);(5) , -

15 , SAAS-R- . , , , 5,54, 5,54 4,15; ,

,

, : 1,12, 0,77 1,36.


22/39

164 | :

, /(NEO-PI-R).

, - ( . Feist, 1999; Selby, Shaw, &Houtz, 2005). , / /, , - :

, ; , (Ng,2001, Kaufman, 2009, . 157; ).

, - , , -. , , .

: (1) , , -

, (NEO-PI-R); (2) - (SAAS-R);(3) , , . (TAS20); (4) , -

, / (BSRI). - , (Altaras Dimitrijevi i Juri,2011), . , , / ; , , -

-


23/39

: | 165

. -

, . , , - / () , / . , - , () ,

., : (1)

(NEO-PI-R);(2) , (SAAS-R);(3) , ( ) (NEO-PI-R). - , ( . Ford, 1992) . ; , , - , - /

, , .

/ , - :


24/39

6.3. : - / ,

.

, .

;

.

.

.

.

.

.

. .

.

.

.

-,

,

.

.

.

.

, , .

.

.

- () ,

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

-

.

.

, .

.

.

.

.

/

/


25/39

: | 167

/

/

, - : (1) -, (2) , (3) - , (4) , .

, - , - . , , - ,

, , (Ziegler & Stger,2003). , -, , - .

- . , - / , ; , , . ,

,


26/39

168 | :

( NEO-PI-R-a); , - -

. . - , - ; , ( -), ; .

, ( ). , ( . Hawkins, 1997; Rogers,2007), , , ; - , , ; , , - ( ), / .

, - ( -

).

, - , . , . , - -


27/39

: | 169

, / - , . ,

, . , - -, .

Altaras, A. (2006). Darovitost i podbacivanje. Panevo-Beograd: Mali Nemo,Institut za psihologiju i Centar za primenjenu psihologiju.

Altaras Dimitrijevi, A. i Mijatovi, L. (2010, 6. februar). Ui muki: dimenzijepolne uloge kao faktori podbacivanja darovitih uenika. Empirijska istraivanja u psihologiji, Filozofski fakultet uBeogradu.

Altaras Dimitrijevi, A. i Juri, D. (2011, 23. septembar). Poreenje darovitihuenika vieg i nieg kolskog postignua na merama emocionalneinteligencije. Dani primenjene psihologije,Filozofski fakultet u Niu.

Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The 20-item TorontoAlexithymia Scale-I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factorstructure.Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38 (1), 2332.

Baker, J. A., Bridger, R. & Evans, K. (1998). Models of underachievement amonggifted preadolescents: The role of personal, family, and school factors. GiftedChild Quarterly, 42 (1), 515 .

Baum, S. M., Renzulli, J. S. & Hbert, T. P. (1995). Reversing underachievement:Creative productivity as a systematic intervention. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(4), 224235.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 42 (1), 155162.

Bujas, Z. (1971). Neverbalna serija za ispitivanje inteligencije. Zagreb: Republikizavod za zapoljavanje.

Butler-Por, N. (1987). Underachievers in school: Issues and intervention. Chichester:John Wiley & Sons.

Clemons, T. L. (2008). Underachieving gifted students: A social cognitive model.(Research Monograph No. 08234). Storrs, CT: The National Research Centerfor the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York:

Academic Press.


28/39

170 | :

Colangelo, N. & Assouline, S. G. (2000). Counseling gifted students. In: K. A.Heller, F. J. Mnks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), Internationalhandbook of giftedness and talent (second edition, pp. 595607). Oxford:Elsevier Science.

Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Christensen, P., & Maxey, J. (1993). A comparison ofgifted underachievers and gifted high achievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(4), 155160.

Daz, E. (1998). Perceived factors influencing the academic underachievementof talented students of Puerto Rican descent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42 (2),105122.

Dowdall, C. B. & Colangelo, N. (1982). Underachieving gifted students: Reviewand implications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 26 (4), 179184.

uri-Joi, D., Damonja-Ignjatovi, T. i Kneevi, G. (2004). NEO-PI-R:

primena i interpretacija. Beograd: Centar za primenjenu psihologiju.Feist, G. J. (1999). Influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity.

In: R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273296). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Feldhusen, J. F. (2001). Terman, Hollingworth, and the gifted. Book review.Roeper Review, 23 (3), 165.

Ford, D. Y. (1992). Determinants of underachievement as perceived by gifted,above-average, and average Black students. Roeper Review, 14 (3), 130136.

Ford, D. Y. (1993). An investigation on the paradox of underachievement amonggifted Black students. Roeper Review, 16 (2), 7884.

Ford, D. Y. (1995). A study of achievement and underachievement amonggifted, potentially gifted, and average African-American students (ResearchMonograph No. 95128). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center for theGifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Hawkins, J. (1997). Giftedness and psychological type.Journal of Secondary GiftedEducation, 9 (2), 5767.

Hbert, T. P. (2001). If I had a notebook, I know things would change: Brightunderachieving young men in urban classrooms. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(3), 174194.

Hoekman, K., McCormick, J., & Gross, M. (1999). The optimal context forgifted students: A preliminary exploration of motivational and affectiveconsiderations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43 (3), 170193.

Holland, J. L. & Baird, L. L. (1968). The Preconscious Activity Scale: Thedevelopment and validation of an originality measure. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 2 (3), 217225.

Jovanovi, V., Teovanovi, P., Mentus, T. i Petrovi, M. (2010). Daroviti podbacivau koli neko ko ima problem ili buntovnik koji pravi problem?,Psihologija, 43 (3), 263279.

Kanevsky, L. & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understandingboredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26 (1), 2028.


29/39

: | 171

Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Matthews, M. S. & McBee, M. T. (2007). School factors and the underachievementof gifted students in a talent search summer program. Gifted Child Quarterly,

51 (2), 167181.McCoach, D. B. & Siegle, D. (2003a). Factors that differentiate underachievinggifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Querterly,47 (2), 144154.

McCoach, D. B. & Siegle, D. (2003b). The School Attitude Assessment Survey-Revised: A new instrument to identify academically able students whounderachieve. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63 (3), 414429.

Marecek, J. (2003). Dancing through minefields: Toward a qualitative stance inpsychology. In: Camic, P. (Eds.), Qualitative Research in Psychology (pp. 4969). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Mayer, R. E. (2005). The scientific study of giftedness. In: R. J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (second edition, pp. 437447).New York: Cambridge University Press.

Perleth, C. & Sierwald, W. (2001). Entwicklungs und Leistungsanalysen zurHochbegabung. In: K. A. Heller (Hrsg.), Hochbegabung im Kinder undJugendalter(2. Auflage ; pp. 172355). Gttingen: Hogrefe.

Peters, W. A. M., Grager-Loidl, H., & Supplee, P. (2000). Underachievement ingifted children and adolescents: Theory and practice. In: K. A. Heller, F.Mnks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of

giftedness and alent (second edition, pp. 609620). Oxford: Elsevier.Rayneri, L. J., Gerber, B. L., & Wiley, L. P. (2006). The relationship between

classroom environment and the learning style preferences of gifted middleschool students and the impact on levels of performance. Gifted ChildQuarterly, 50 (2), 104118.

Redding, R. E. (1990). Learning preferences and skill patterns amongunderachieving gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34 (2), 7275.

Reis, S. M., Hbert, T. P., Diaz, E. P., Maxfield, L. R., & Ratley, M. E. (1995). Casestudies of talented students who achieve and underachieve in an urban highschool (Research Monograph No. 95120). Storrs, CT: The National ResearchCenter for the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Reis, S. M. & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students:What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44 (3), 152170.

Renzulli, J. S., Reid, B. D., & Gubbins, E. J (1992). Setting an agenda: Researchpriorities for the gifted and talented through the year 2000. Storrs, CT:University of Connecticut, The National Reasearch Center on the Gifted andTalented.

Rimm, S. B. (1996). Parenting for achievement. Roeper Review, 19 (1), 5759.


30/39

172 | :

Rimm, S. B. (2008). Underachievement syndrome: A psychological defensivepattern. In: Pfeiffer, S. I. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children(pp. 139160). New York: Springer.

Rimm, S. B. & Lowe, B. (1988). Family environments of underachieving giftedstudents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32 (4), 353359.

Rogers, K. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: Asynthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(4), 382396.

Royce, J. R., Mos, L. P., & Kearsly, G. P. (1975). Manual: Psycho-EpistemologicalProfile (Forms V & VI). Edmonton: Center for Advanced Study in TheoreticalPsychology at the Unversity of Alberta, Canada.

Selby, E. C., Shaw, E. J., & Houtz, J. C. (2005). The creative personality. GiftedChild Quarterly, 49 (4), 300314.

Stevanovi, B. (1988): Verbalna serija. Prirunik. Beograd: Savez drutavapsihologa SR Srbije i Republiki zavod za zapoljavanje.

Supplee, P. L. (1990). Reaching the gifted underachiever. Program strategy anddesign. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Tellegen, A. & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-alteringexperiences (absorption), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journalof Abnormal Psychology, 83, 268277.

Teovanovi, P. (2011). O relativnoj nezavisnosti pristrasnosti prevelikog pouzdanjaod crta linosti. Empirijska istraivanja upsihologiji, Filozofski fakultet u Beogradu.

Terman, L. M. & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up: Twenty-fiveyears follow-up of a superior group. In: Genetic Studies of Genius (Vol. 4).Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Vock, M., Gauck, L., & Vogl, K. (2010). Diagnostik von Schulleistungen undUnderachievement. In: F. Preckel, W. Schneider, & H. Holling (Hrsg),Diagnostik von Hochbegabung(pp. 117). Gttingen: Hogrefe.

Waugh, R. F. (2001). Measuring ideal and real self-concept on the same scale,based on a multifaceted, hierarchical model of self-concept. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 61 (1), 85101.

Wolf, B., Momirovi, K., & Damonja, Z. (1992). KOG 3 Baterija testovainteligencije. Beograd: Centar za primenjenu psihologiju.

Whitmore, J. R. (1980). Giftedness, conflict, and underachievement. Boston: Allynand Bacon.

Wolfle, J. A. (1991). Underachieving gifted males: Are we missing the boat?Roeper Review, 13 (4), 181183.

Ziegler, A. & Stger, H. (2003). Identification of underachievement withstandardized tests, student, parental and teacher assessment: An empiricalstudy on the agreement among various diagnostic sources. Gifted andTalented International, 18, 8794.


31/39

: | 173

6.4.

d

BSRI()

6,50

4,39

1,94

.

:

2,05

0,69

1,69

.

:

1,96

0,73

1,56

-

.

:

2,34

1,12

1,55

.

:

1,96

0,77

1,32

/.

SAAS-R

-

5,85

3,96

1,30

/

/.

:

2,44

1,36

1,25

//.

SAAS-R

-

4,71

2,65

1,15

.

SAAS-R

-

5,65

4,15

1,13

BSRI()

6,19

4,94

1,13

.

NEOPI-R

C1.

4,30

3,48

1,11

BSRI()

6,44

5,39

1,11

.

NEOPI-R

C4.

4,25

3,33

1,03

BSRI()

6,17

5,05

1,03

.

SAAS-R

6,46

5,38

0,99

/

.

SAAS-R

6,49

5,54

0,97

.

SAAS-R

-

4,02

2,35

0,94

BSRI()

5,75

4,72

0,94


32/39

174 | :

BSRI()

5,81

5,00

0,92

BSRI()

5,74

4,82

0,91

/

.

SAAS-R

-

4,36

2,65

0,90

/

.

SAAS-R

5,38

3,92

0,88

.SAAS-R

4,91

3,35

0,88

BSRI()

5,69

4,94

0,88

.

NEOPI-R

C3.

4,40

3,67

0,87

.

NEOPI-R

C5.

3,94

3,00

0,87

.

SAAS-R

-

4,05

2,58

0,86

.

:

2,19

1,46

0,86

.

SAAS-R

-

5,60

4,62

0,83

.

SAAS-R

-

4,59

3,27

0,82

BSRI()

6,00

5,22

0,81

.

SAAS-R

-

3,88

2,69

0,80

.

NEOPI-R

C5.

4,13

3,48

0,80

.

NEOPI-R

C4.

2,60

1,85

0,80

.

SAAS-R

5,54

4,38

0,78

.

:

1,97

1,27

0,76

.

SAAS-R

-

6,28

5,54

0,75

BSRI()

5,00

4,04

0,73


33/39

: | 175

.

NEOPI-R

C5.

3,71

2,94

0,72

.

SAAS-R

-

3,60

2,50

0,71

.

SAAS-R

-

4,70

3,48

0,68

.

SAAS-R

-

4,98

3,92

0,67

.

NEOPI-R

C6.

3,60

2,84

0,67

.

SAAS-R

-

4,65

3,62

0,66

BSRI()

5,78

4,91

0,66

/

.

SAAS-R

-

5,96

5,19

0,65

.

SAAS-R

-

3,48

2,42

0,65

.

NEOPI-R

C3.

3,73

2,87

0,65

.

SAAS-R

-

3,91

3,00

0,62

,

.

NEOPI-R

C3.

4,55

4,09

0,62

.

SAAS-R

5,06

4,08

0,61

.

NEOPI-R

C4.

4,40

3,84

0,61

-

.

PEP

3,94

3,19

0,60

.

SAAS-R

-

3,68

2,77

0,59

.

SAAS-R

-

4,99

4,04

0,59

-

.

NEOPI-R

C5.

4,05

3,54

0,59


34/39

176 | :

.

PAS

-

0,59

0,31

0,59

.

SAAS-R

-

3,56

2,65

0,57

.

:

1,85

1,31

0,57

.

NEOPI-R

5.-

3,34

2,52

0,57

.

SAAS-R

5,25

4,27

0,55

.

--

2,41

1,96

0,55

.

PAS

-

0,55

0,29

0,55

.

NEOPI-R

C3.

4,48

3,95

0,54

.

NEOPI-R

C4.

4,18

3,67

0,54

.

PAS

-

0,62

0,36

0,54

.

SAAS-R

-

4,96

4,00

0,52

.

2,29

1,88

0,52

.

PEP

2,58

2,00

0,52

,

.

NEOPI-R

C6.

3,19

2,62

0,50

.

PEP

3,34

2,82

0,49

/

.

:

2,67

2,40

0,48

.

-

1,93

1,50

0,46

/.

:

2,69

2,42

0,46

.NEOPI-R

C1.

4,04

3,66

0,46

.

NEOPI-R

2.

4,18

3,75

0,45

.

NEOPI-R

C6.

3,86

3,38

0,45

,

.

NEOPI-R

5.

2,42

1,89

0,45


35/39

: | 177

,

.

PEP

3,73

3,27

0,45

.

PAS

-

0,39

0,19

0,45

-

.

PAS

-

0,55

0,33

0,45

,

.

PAS

-

0,59

0,37

0,45

.

NEOPI-R

2.

3,68

3,16

0,44

,.

NEOPI-R

3.

4,44

4,13

0,43

,

.

NEOPI-R

C3.

4,21

3,80

0,43

,.

-

-

2,39

2,85

0,42

.

NEOPI-R

N1.

3,64

3,22

0,41

-

.

PEP

3,51

3,05

0,41

.

PAS

-

0,86

0,69

0,41

.

NEOPI-R

N2.

3,95

3,56

0,40

-

.

NEOPI-R

C6.

3,62

3,22

0,39

.

NEOPI-R

N5.

3,03

2,63

0,39

,

,

-

.

PAS

-

0,64

0,45

0,39

.

NEOPI-R

1.

4,22

3,90

0,37

.

NEOPI-R

1.

3,29

2,94

0,37

.

NEOPI-R

5.

3,88

3,48

0,37

.

PEP

3,87

3,43

0,37


36/39

178 | :

.

NEOPI-R

N6.

3,70

3,33

0,36

,.

NEOPI-R

2.

3,40

2,89

0,36

-

.

NEOPI-R

C4.

3,91

3,56

0,36

.

NEOPI-R

4.

3,39

2,99

0,35

.

PEP

2,69

2,22

0,35

,

-

,.

PEP

3,79

3,38

0,35

,

.

NEOPI-R

C4.

3,70

3,32

0,34

.

NEOPI-R

N3.

3,43

3,05

0,34

.

NEOPI-R

1.

3,44

3,09

0,34

-

.

PEP

4,26

4,00

0,34

.

TAS

-

4,01

3,63

0,34

,

.

NEOPI-R

N4.-

3,13

2,75

0,33

.

NEOPI-R

N4.-

3,19

2,84

0,32


37/39

: | 179

6.5.

d

BSRI()

3,38

5,17

1,09

BSRI()

1,91

3,45

1,07

BSRI()

3,70

4,95

1,01

BSRI()

4,78

6,00

0,99

BSRI()

4,17

5,68

0,86

.

NEOPI-R

C5.

2,61

3,47

0,78

BSRI()

5,48

6,18

0,78

BSRI()

5,30

6,18

0,76

.

NEOPI-R

C6.

2,65

3,48

0,71

BSRI()

5,70

6,32

0,68

BSRI()

5,83

6,41

0,65

BSRI()

3,30

4,14

0,63

BSRI()

5,22

6,00

0,62

,

.

PEP

3,51

4,16

0,59

.

NEOPI-R

C5.

2,90

3,57

0,58

.

NEOPI-R

C2.

2,27

2,95

0,58

.

-

2,16

2,82

0,55

.

NEOPI-R

N5.

3,40

3,94

0,52

.

PAS

-

0,30

0,55

0,52

.

PEP

2,53

3,30

0,51

.

TAS

2,89

3,53

0,51

.

1,74

2,32

0,49


38/39

180 | :

,

.

NEOPI-R

2.

2,25

2,82

0,47

.

NEOPI-R

4.

3,19

3,67

0,46

,

.

TAS

3,63

4,19

0,46

.

NEOPI-R

C2.

2,39

2,89

0,45

,,

.

TAS

2,58

3,14

0,45

.

NEOPI-R

2.

4,18

4,59

0,44

,

,

.

NEOPI-R

3.

3,68

4,15

0,43

.

NEOPI-R

5.-

3,83

4,28

0,43

.

-

3,26

3,76

0,42

.

NEOPI-R

1.

3,96

4,34

0,41

,

.

PEP

3,10

3,57

0,41

.

TAS

2,70

3,23

0,41

.

NEOPI-R

2.

4,35

4,70

-0,40

.

NEOPI-R

C5.

2,71

3,16

-0,39

.

NEOPI-R

2.

3,69

4,10

-0,37

.

NEOPI-R

C3.

2,70

3,14

-0,37

.

NEOPI-R

N4.-

2,58

3,03

-0,37

.

NEOPI-R

N3.

2,32

2,73

-0,36

,

.

NEOPI-R

C5.

2,53

2,89

-0,36

.

PEP

3,29

3,66

-0,36


39/39

| 181

.

TAS

3,17

3,61

-0,36

,

.

-

2,37

2,77

-0,36

.

NEOPI-R

1.

2,05

2,37

-0,35

.

NEOPI-R

1.

3,08

3,46

-0,35

.

TAS

-

3,38

3,78

-0,35

.

NEOPI-R

4.

3,34

3,78

-0,34

.

NEOPI-R

C1.

1,81

2,18

-0,34

.

NEOPI-R

5.-

3,65

4,10

-0,34

,

.

PEP

3,03

3,46

-0,34

.PEP

3,96

4,25

-0,33

,

,

.

PEP

3,68

4,08

-0,33

,

.PAS

-

0,68

0,82

-0,33

zbornik 2012. psiholoski profil darovitih podbacivaca.pdf

Documents