Running head: MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES ASSESSMENT … · Web viewDevelopment and Validation of a Multiple Intelligences. Assessment for Children. C. Branton Shearer, Ph.D. Multiple

Multiple Intelligences Assessment 1

Running head: MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES ASSESSMENT

Development and Validation of a Multiple Intelligences

Assessment for Children

C. Branton Shearer, Ph.D.

Multiple Intelligences Research and Consulting

1316 S. Lincoln St.

Kent, Ohio 44240

330-677-8534

[email protected]


Development and Validation of a Multiple Intelligences Assessment for Children

Abstract

Three studies describe the development and validation of a self- and parent-report measure of

children's multiple intelligences disposition, The Multiple Intelligences Developmental

Assessment Scales for Children (MIDAS-KIDS). Two initial studies describe the development

and preliminary validation of the instrument. The third validation study involved over 2240

children in grades K - 8 from five states and across a range of socioeconomic levels. Factor

analyses identified an appropriate seven-factor solution. High internal consistency estimates (.82

- .91), inter-rater ratings (.15 - .61), test-retest reliability (.68 - .90), and criterion-related validity

statistics were obtained. Results indicated that MIDAS-KIDS possesses adequate validity and

reliability for classroom use, but further studies will help to substantiate criterion-related validity

and strategies for interpretation. Subscale cluster analysis is recommended for further scale

development.

______ total words


DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES ASSESSMENT

FOR CHILDREN

The nature of human intelligence has fascinated people around the world for as long as

history has been recorded. Every culture possesses a vocabulary to describe what abilities and

characteristics are responsible for a person to navigate successfully the challenges of everyday

life and make vital contributions to the social welfare. In our Western culture the measurement

of intelligence has been a major focus for psychologists ever since Alfred Binet developed the

first test of cognitive abilities for French school children in 1905. In spite of Binet's refusal to

claim that his test actually measured intelligence his invention became the basis for one of

psychology's most enduring contributions to education and society of the 20th century.

Concurrent with the worldwide growth of the testing industry over the course of nearly

100 years, many theorists have continued to debate the validity of both unitary and multifaceted

models of human intelligence (Block & Dworkin, 1976; Thurstone, 1938; Sternberg, 1988).

Multifaceted theories and tests have not gained much acceptance nor use. The unitary definition

of intelligence -- as exemplified by the intellectual quotient (I.Q.) and assessed by the Stanford-

Binet (2004) and the Weschler (1974) tests -- has become a ubiquitous feature of contemporary

life and every school child's educational experience.

Although prominent theorists such as J.P. Guilford (1967), L.L. Thurstone (1938) and

R.J. Sternberg (1988) have offered multi-factored alternatives to the unitary I.Q. model, none

have had the impact on the worldwide educational community as that of the theory of multiple

intelligences (MI). In 1983, Howard Gardner proposed that human intelligence is best defined as

a "bio-social potential" that allows a person to solve problems, create products or provide

services that are valued within a community. Using this definition and eight criteria, Gardner has


identified at least eight distinct yet complementary constructs: linguistic, logical-mathematical,

musical, spatial, kinesthetic, interpersonal and intrapersonal and naturalist (1993) (see Appendix

1 for details).

Gardner's (1983, 1993) contextual and culturally embedded definition of intelligence

challenges the assumption that intellectual prowess can be reduced to a single score that can be

measured via paper-and-pencil and decontextualized tests. In the MI perspective, the vast

majority of "real world" problem solving occurs within value-laden, stimulus-rich situations

requiring something more than answering short questions with short answers as quickly as

possible. This contextually-based conception of intellectual ability requires a new approach to

assessment in order to describe the person's intellectual and creative life.

Psychologists and educators both criticize MI theory because there is no data-based,

empirically validated test for each of the various intelligences. Psychologists condemn MI as a

mere “literary” rather than “scientific” theory because it lacks large-scale test-based validation.

Educators require a valid MI assessment upon which to build MI-inspired curriculum and

instruction.

The lack of a research-based MI assessment has lead to two undesirable results. First, to

aid classroom instruction teachers have resorted to the widespread use of brief checklists that are

included in many popular books (and websites) describing the multiple intelligences (Armstrong,

1994; Campbell, Campbell & Dickinson,1992; Chapman, 1993; Kagan & Kagan, 1998). The use

of informal MI checklists has been criticized by Gardner and others (Gardner, 1999; Chen, et al,

1998; Stefanakis, 2002), as misrepresenting MI theory by being overly simplistic, deceptive and

potentially harmful. Second, and perhaps of greater consequence, because there is no recognized

data-based MI assessment the acceptance (or rejection) of MI theory as a valid scientific


description of the intellectual potential of human beings has stalemated into an argument of

“believers” vs. “non-believers.” This stalemate has placed MI theory and its implementation in a

marginalized position because it is viewed as “not being research-based.”

Gardner’s meta-empirical / trans-disciplinary approach to MI theory building for the

past 25 years has appealed to large numbers of educators around the world, but has failed to

convince data-oriented, experimental research psychologists. Nearly one hundred years of data

collection supporting the validity of the unitary construct of general intelligence (g) (and

embraced by psychologists and the general public in the IQ score) cannot be undermined by

what is referred to as “merely a literary theory” rather than a scientific verity by its critics

(personal communication). Likewise, public policy makers require efficient and statistically

valid measures of student and school performance in order to support the use of any theory or

assessment that will alter the structure or function of schools. U.S. Department of Education

guidelines require that school innovations be "research-based" in order to qualify for federal

funding (Linn, et al, 2002; No Child Left Behind Act, 2002).

Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales (MIDAS)

The Multiple Intelligences Developmental Assessment Scales (MIDAS) is a self or other

completed questionnaire that can be administered and interpreted by psychologists, counselors

and teachers. There are four versions of the assessment for various age groups, ranging from

four years through adulthood. The MIDAS inquires about developed skill, levels of

participation, and enthusiasm for a wide variety of activities that are naturally encountered as a

part of daily life. The MIDAS was initially developed in 1987 as a structured interview format to

assess the multiple intelligences for adolescents and adults undergoing cognitive rehabilitation

(Way and Shearer, 1990). A summary of research results concluded that the MIDAS provides a


“reasonable estimate” of a person’s intellectual disposition in the eight designated areas

(Shearer, 1996; Buros, 1999, 2007).

The MIDAS is 119-item questionnaire with Likert-style individually written response

choices. It was originally developed as a structured interview format to gather information about

a brain injured person's pre-morbid MI profile from someone who knew the person well prior to

injury. At this time, for educational purposes, it is most often group or individually administered

as a self-report description of intellectual activities, skills, and involvements.

Research with the MIDAS has indicated that this instrument possesses acceptable

psychometric properties including factor structure, item consistency, test-retest reliability and

appropriate discrimination with various criterion groups and measures (Buros, 1999, 2007;

Shearer, 1996). Recent research found appropriate patterns and correlational values among

MIDAS scales and matched reading, math and IQ scores (Shearer, 2006). These findings support

the assumption that an adolescent's or adult's perceived multiple intelligences disposition can be

reasonably described by way of self-report through the careful use and interpretation of the

MIDAS Profile.

Objectives

The goals of the following research were to adapt the teen version of the MIDAS for pre-

adolescent children in grades Kindergarten through eighth, that (a) provide a profile of a child's

developed skill levels in seven identified constructs; (b) provide an estimate of propensity for

two intellectual style scales, Innovation and Technical; (c) demonstrate acceptable psychometric

properties (e.g., scale reliability); (d) possess a sound factor structure and discriminate

adequately among appropriate criterion groups; and (e) can be used effectively with children

across a range of cultures, ages, abilities and socioeconomic status.


Initial Scale Construction

The MIDAS-KIDS questionnaire was developed over a period of two years following the

format and style of questions employed with the teen MIDAS questionnaire. An initial group of

items was generated after a careful review of the behavioral characteristics associated with each

intelligence appropriate for children, as described by Gardner (1983, 1993), in Frames of Mind.

The goal was to make it easy for a child or parent to respond with a minimum of guesswork or

generalization. The items inquire about observable behaviors representing specific skill domains

within each construct as described by MI theory, e.g., writing for Linguistic and calculations for

Math-logic. To enhance reliability, three to four questions regarding activities representing each

designated skill domain within the seven constructs were written.

The items are written in one of three basic forms. Some items ask the informant to

assess the frequency or duration of time the child spends engaged in an activity that characterizes

the construct. Other questions ask the informant to provide a realistic evaluation of the child's

performance on that activity. Still other questions ask the informant to provide an assessment of

the child's enthusiasm for the activity. Response choices are uniquely written to fit the particular

content of each question (see sample item in Appendix 2).

Each item has an "I don't know or Does not apply" choice so respondents are not forced

to guess or assess an activity inappropriate to the child's age or experience. These responses are

counted as missing and not figured into the scale scores. Scores for responses range from zero to

four. On the questionnaire itself, response choices are marked by letter rather than by number to

encourage respondents to respond to the content of descriptive response choice rather than to a

numerical label. Percentage scores for each scale are calculated only from the total number of

responses.


Study 1.

Six elementary teachers trained in MI theory and two school psychologists reviewed the

initial body of 120 items. Two forms of the resulting 113-item questionnaire were devised by the

author, one for children (third grade and above) and a second for parents (K - second grade). The

reading difficulty of the children's questionnaire was estimated as being Easy at about the fifth

grade level with a Reading Ease score of 86.7 (Flesch Reading Ease, 2001). Within each scale,

items were grouped according to specific domains creating tentative subscales (e.g., Instrument

for Musical and Working with Numbers for Mathematical-Logical) logically consistent with MI

theory.

This 113-item questionnaire was then administered in an in-depth pilot study to a group

of 49 children in grades K through eighth and 74 parents. Some participants were interviewed by

a research assistant and others completed the questionnaire independently. Teachers at an MI-

designed school also administered the questionnaire to individual students and requested that

parents complete it. All participants were given the opportunity to comment on the questionnaire

when finished. General impressions and problem items were thus noted for future consideration.

Seventeen questions were eliminated from the item set because of low reliabilities and

participants' suggestions. For example, "Did you have a hard time learning how to tie your

shoes?" was eliminated because children could not remember this information. The question "Is

it easy for you to keep the beat when you're clapping your hands or tapping your feet?" was

simplified to "How well do you keep the beat when you clap your hands or tap your feet?"

Study 2.

The 96 remaining questions were submitted for content review by subject area classroom

teachers (art, physical education, music, reading, and math). Two school counselors and two


school psychologists reviewed the questionnaire for sex bias and age appropriateness. A trained

research assistant also conducted in-depth interviews with seven children and parents. During

these interviews the researcher inquired about the meaning of each question and the clarity of

wording. The 96-item questionnaire was then revised by the author so that item content

adequately covered each domain within the designated MI construct. Problematic questions were

also rewritten to be clear in their meaning and appropriate for the range of targeted age groups.

The revised 96-item questionnaire was then administered by classroom teachers to 145

children and 25 parents for further item and scale analysis. Scale means, standard deviations and

coefficient alphas were calculated. Items were subsequently modified or dropped from the scale

if item-total correlations were low (i.e., r < .30) or the response pattern was skewed. Additional

responses and suggestions by interviewees regarding item construction were considered. As a

result of these analyses, 16 items were eliminated so that the final 80-item instrument consisted

of seven main intelligence scales and two intellectual style scales (Technical and Innovative).

A content analysis of the finalized item set was conducted by an experienced MI teacher

to ensure that domain categories were adequately represented. It was found that 45 questions

(56%) inquire about skills and 24 (30%) ask about amount of participation and 11 (14%) ask

about expressed enthusiasm. The reading difficulty of the questionnaire was estimated as being

Very Easy at about the 4th grade level with a Reading Ease score of 92.5 (Flesch Reading Ease,

2001). The parent's version of the instrument was also adjusted accordingly as is appropriate for

an outside informant. All items could be translated into observable terms so that an informant

might reasonably be able to rate particular activities in question.


Study 3.

The goals of the third study were to (a) replicate the item analysis; (b) examine internal

consistency estimates and inter-rater reliability, (b) explore the factor structure of the instrument;

and (c) initial investigation of its concurrent and discriminant validity (i.e., correspondence

between ratings on the MIDAS scales and appropriate criterion groups and measures).

Method

Participants

Parent and child permission were again obtained for children to participate in this

project. The sample consisted of 106 kindergarten parents, 155 first grade parents, 148 second

grade parents, 152 third grade students, 184 fourth grade students, 288 fifth grade students, 442

sixth grade students, 423 seventh grade students and 245 eighth graders (N=2,241) from six

middle schools and seven elementary schools in five states on the east coast, west coast, and

midwest. The schools were selected to represent a socio-economically diverse array of student

backgrounds, ranging from large inner city neighborhoods, small towns, suburban and rural

school districts. The sample included 1,142 (51%) girls and 1,099 boys. The mean age of the

total sample was 10.8 and 561 (25%) were African-American, 1,525 (68%) were White, and the

remainder (n=67 or 3%) were unclassified.

Measures

Teachers in two schools administered The MIDAS to students and provided their Verbal,

Performance and Full Scale I.Q. scores from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-R

(WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974). These scores were used in several preliminary validity

investigations described below.


Procedures

The teachers administered the 80-item questionnaire to intact third through eighth grade

classes using a standard set of instructions. Third grade teachers read the questionnaire aloud

while students followed along. The parents of K-2 students completed the questionnaire at home

and returned it a week later. Teachers provided Verbal, Performance and Full Scale I.Q. scores

from student records. Students from three schools self-reported participation in one or more

activities of interest, curricular and extracurricular programs for validity comparisons.

A group of 57 parents of children in an Academically Talented program at a middle

school were asked to complete the instrument in addition to their child's self- rating. The teacher

of this program also provided the children's WISC-R scores.

Results

Results are presented in two sections: (a) reliability statistics: Alpha, inter-rater

comparisons and temporal stability; (b) construct and criterion group validity: factor analyses,

concurrent measures and contrasted groups.

Reliability

Intrascale reliabilities were calculated (Table 1) and coefficient alpha's ranged from a low

of .83 for Kinesthetic and Linguistic to a high of .91 for Intrapersonal. The number of items per

scale range from 10 to 22. These results indicated strong internal consistency for the seven

scales. Similar results were obtained for the two intellectual style scales, Innovation (.82) and

Technical (.83).

-- Insert Table 1 About Here --

Comparative statistics between the parents' scale scores and the children's self-

assessment are provided in Table 2. Correlation coefficients between these two samples range


from a low of .15 for Interpersonal to a high of .61 for Musical. All correlations are significant

at least at the .05-level except for Interpersonal.


In a separate study, an entire 8th grade class of students (N=93) at a suburban middle

school completed the questionnaire two times with a one-week separation. Correlations for the

seven main scales ranged from a low of .68 to .82 with most scales near to .80 (see Table 1).

Validity

Factor Analyses. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted using a random sample

from the database of approximately 850 participants nine years old and above. Maximum

Likelihood analysis using Promax rotation (Kappa 4) revealed sixteen factors with eigen values

greater than one that accounted for 56% of the total variance. An examination of the scree plot

showed possible break points between factors six and eight.

A review of the items comprising each of the initial sixteen factors found that the first

four factors matched with theoretical expectations (Intrapersonal, Spatial, Kinesthetic and

Musical). The next three predicted factors—Interpersonal, Linguistic and Logical-mathematical

– were split between two factors each. An additional five factors consisted of only one or two

items each and were unable to be interpreted. It is instructive to note that the split factors for the

three scales are consistent with MI theory and correspond well with proposed content subscales.

For example, the first Logical-mathematical factor consists of questions pertaining to

mathematics and numbers while the second factor contains only questions related to logical

thinking and problem solving.

The scale’s factor structure was then explored using Maximum Likelihood analysis with

Promax rotation (Kappa 4) and a seven factor specification. This analysis accounted for 42% of


the total variance with a great majority of the items loading primarily on their designated scale

(see Table 3).

-- Insert Table 3 and Figure 1 About Here --

The inter-factor correlations range from .24 (Logical and Linguistic) to .60 (Logical and

Intrapersonal) with a majority in the .45 range (Table 4)


The seven-factor structure did not, however, display a perfectly clean pattern of items

loading on a single factor only. Approximately 30% of the items were found to correlate on one

factor (or in a few instances two) in addition to their designated scale. Nearly all of these co-

loadings are theoretically consistent with multiple intelligences theory and so the most

significant correlations were incorporated into a complex scoring matrix. For example, item #34,

"How good are you at taking things apart and then putting them back together again?"

correlates at .38 with Spatial and at .33 with Kinesthetic. Item #61, “Is it easy for you to get

people to do things your way?” correlates at .63 with Interpersonal and at .36 with Intrapersonal.

As Howard Gardner has noted (1983) successful performance on complex everyday tasks often

requires a combination of intelligences and these co-loading items are theoretically consistent

examples of this idea. A drawback to this scoring procedure is that it produces moderately high

inter-scale correlations ranging from .43 to .79 with a mean of .62 (Table 1).

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses and item-scale total score correlational studies

were conducted with new samples in order to clarify the optimal scale item composition. These

studies provided confirmation of the seven-factor structure, but also indicated the need to co-

score some items to account for the complex nature of real world performances1.

1 This research was conducted with a seven intelligences version of the questionnaire developed


-- Insert Tables 5 & 6 About Here --

Criterion Group Validity

Tables 7, 8 and 9 display the mean scale scores of a representative student group, means

by grade level and 12 criterion groups. Scale score distributions approximated normal, and

scores demonstrated good dispersion.

-- Insert Table 7 and 8 About Here --

Some of the criterion groups were determined by teacher selection using various

appropriate criteria (focus talent area groups, LD, Academically Talented) and other groups

were identified by way of students' self-report of voluntary participation (orchestra, social

groups, gymnastics, sports). The middle school for the Visual and Performing Arts is a selective,

citywide magnet school where students must pass an audition and have teacher

recommendations. Most students have several years of instruction and training in their focus

talent areas. The Dance, Vocal, Art, Drama and Music groups in the focus talent areas. All

students have one focus area and some have two.

The Learning Disability (LD) group were students (identified by teachers and test results)

who participate in resource room activities and are provided with individualized instruction to

remediate academic or learning difficulties. The mean I.Q. scores for a group of 12 of these

students are: Full Scale= 92, Verbal= 91 and Performance=96. The Academically Talented

(AT) group consists of students in three enrichment programs selected primarily on the basis of

prior to the identification of the Naturalist intelligence by Howard Gardner in 1996. Subsequent

factor analytic studies confirmed the original seven-factor structure as well as the additional

eighth for the item created to assess Naturalist abilities.


high I.Q. scores. The I.Q. test scores available for 50 students in this sample result in a mean

Full Scale score of 136, Verbal score of 136 and Performance score of 130.

The voluntary extra-curricular groups (e.g., Orchestra, Social, Gymnastics and Sports)

were all middle school students in public schools. The Orchestra group consisted of students

who generally had several years of experience with their instruments. The Social group consists

of students who indicated that they were members of any of three school organizations: student

counsel, Peer Mediators and Circle of Friends. The Gymnastics group consists of students who

participated for at least one year in gymnastics instruction. The Sports group consists of students

who indicated participation in any of four sports activities: basketball, track, badminton and

soccer.

The representative student group is presented for comparative purposes. It is composed

of undifferentiated public school students in grades 4 through 8th (Table 7). Mean scores per

grade level are displayed in Table 8.


Concurrent Comparisons With Standard Tests

The teachers for two student groups (Academically Talented and LD, N=62) provided

each students' Verbal, Performance and Full Scale scores from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale-

Revised (WISC-R). The correlations between the 10 MIDAS scales and these scores are

presented in Table 10. The highest correlation is between the Linguistic scale and Verbal I.Q.

(r=.60 p<.001). The next strongest and significant correlations also with the Verbal scale are for

Logical (.57) and Intrapersonal (.58). Low and insignificant correlations with the Verbal scale

are observed for Kinesthetic (-.04), Spatial (-.01) and Interpersonal (.14).


The strongest correlations with Full Scale I.Q. are with Logical and Intrapersonal both

at .54. Again, correlations with Kinesthetic, Spatial and Interpersonal are low and insignificant.

Logical and Intrapersonal are also the MI scales most strongly (p<.01) correlated with the

Performance IQ at .39 and .36, respectively.

It is of interest to note that the Innovation scale fails to be correlated with any of the I.Q.

scores, but the Technical scale shows significant correlations across the board. Thus, supporting

their differential validity. Overall, the strength and pattern of these correlations are statistically

significant, theoretically meaningful and in the expected directions. Of course, this small sample

provides only an indication of the scale’s concurrent validity and is not definitive.

The only deviation from the expected pattern is for the Spatial scale and its low

correlation with Performance I.Q. This is a puzzle, but other data appear to indicate that the

Spatial scale examines creative activities and divergent thinking skills rather than logical,

convergent problem-solving. This is supported by the negative correlation between Performance

and Innovation and the significant, positive correlation with the Logical scale.

Summary and Discussion

These results support the hypothesis that a child's perceived multiple intelligences profile

may be obtained with adequate reliability and validity when appropriate verification strategies

are followed to account for sources of respondent bias. The instrument evidenced high internal

consistency across all studies and strong test-retest reliability after a one-week delay.

Correlations between a child's self-report and the parent’s assessment were generally acceptable

in the moderate range except for the Interpersonal scale.

Small scale studies of the MIDAS-KIDS convergent and discriminant validity was

supported by appropriate patterns of correlations with WISC-R scores as well as a contrasted

groups study with criterion groups. Additionally, construct validity for the seven scales was

supported by exploratory factor analysis.

Recommendations resulting from the interpretations of these research results are

possible. Additional scale development is indicated based on the factor analyses. An undesirable

number of items correlate with more than one scale, which results in moderate inter-scale

correlations. Scale simplification may be obtained through the judicious elimination of a number

of complex items that are weakly correlated with a designated factor.

Further scale development should occur which will examine content and criterion related

validity in light of both the factor structure and theoretical predictions. Concurrent validity

comparisons should be replicated with larger sample sizes. Cluster analysis should also be

conducted to investigate subscale patterns within each main scale. This will enhance the

effective interpretation of results for educational uses and substantiate construct validity. It is

recommended that an additional shorter MIDAS-KIDS version be created for parent completion

regarding children between the ages of five and nine.

It must be noted that the MIDAS-KIDS is a measure of perceived intellectual disposition

and as such the results need to be carefully reviewed for validity with the input of the person in

light of other life experiences including grades, hobbies, test results and feedback from teachers.

The MIDAS Profile is a product of the child's Intrapersonal awareness and psychological factors

can influence the results such as depression, ego inflation and self-criticalness. When completed

by a parent, it is important to consider influences that might distort the profile such as limited

knowledge, emotional distress and attitudes toward school.

It has been found that people generally know themselves well and they are able to

provide useful information about their intellectual disposition, which is defined as thinking

performance in everyday life in terms of skill, behavior and preference. A person's MI Profile

may differ from actual test scores that are obtained from contrived testing situations that are very

different from the tasks of daily thinking and problem solving. Lastly, researchers now have a

psychometrically-based tool that produces quantitative information that can be used to further

explore the multi-faceted view of human intelligence in children.

References

Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing: 5th ed.. New York: MacMillan.

Armstrong, T. (1994). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. Baltimore:

Williams & Wilkens.

Block, N.J., & Dworkin, G. (1976). The IQ controversy. New York: Pantheon.

Buros, O. (1999). The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook: Supplement. Highland

Park, NJ: Gyphon.

Campbell, L., Campbell, B. & Dickinson, D. (1992). Teaching and learning through

multiple intelligences. Stanwood, WA: New Horizons for Learning.

Chapman, C. (1993). If the shoe fits…how to develop multiple intelligences in the

classroom. Palatine, Illinois: IRI/Skylight Publishing Inc.

Chen, J., Krechevsky, M. and Viens, J. (1998). Building on children's strengths: The

experience of project spectrum. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal consistency of tests.

Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Flesch Reading Ease. (2001). Office XP Word. Microsoft Corp. Word.

Gardner, H. (1998, 1993). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century.

New York: Basic Books.

Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw Hill.

Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (1998). Multiple intelligences: The complete MI book.

San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.

Linn, R.L., Baker, E. & Betebenner, D. (2002). Accountablility systems: implications of

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31, (6) 3 - 16.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Shearer, C. B., & Jones, J. A. (1994, April). The validation of the Hillside Assessment of

Perceived Intelligences: A measure of Howard Gardner’s theory of

multiple intelligences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Mercer, J.R. (1984). What is a racially nondiscriminatory test? In Reynolds, C.R.

& Brown, R.T. (Eds). Perspectives on bias in mental testing. New York: Plenum Press.

Shearer, C. B. (1994). The MIDAS: A professional manual Kent, OH: M.I. Research and

Consulting, Inc.

Shearer, C.B. (2006). Criterion related validity of the MIDAS. Retrieved 6-6-06 from

www.miresearch.org/research.php.

Solomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational

considerations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. (2004). Retrieved July 22, 2004, from

http://www.riverpub.com/products/sb5/index.html.

Stefanakis, E. (2002). Multiple intelligences and portfolios. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

http://www.riverpub.com/products/sb5/index.html

http://www.miresearch.org/research.php

Sternberg, R.J. (1988). Beyond I.Q.: A triarchic theory of human intelligence.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Thurstone, L.L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised.

New York: Psychological Corporation.

Author Note

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to C. Branton Shearer, 1316

S. Lincoln St., Kent, Ohio 44240, [email protected]

______________________________________________________________________

Appendix 1

Multiple Intelligences Definitions and Subscales

______________________________________________________________________

Musical

mailto:[email protected]

To think in sounds, rhythms, melodies and rhymes. To be sensitive to pitch, rhythm, timbre and

tone. To be able to recognize, create and reproduce music by using an instrument or voice.

Active listening and a strong connection between music and emotions.

> Musical Ability: awareness of and sensitivity to music, rhythms, tunes and melody

> Instrument: skill and experience in playing a musical instrument

> Vocal: a good voice for singing in tune and along with other people

> Appreciation: actively enjoys listening to music

Kinesthetic

To think in movements and to use the body in skilled and complicated ways for expressive as well

as goal-directed activities. It involves a sense of timing and coordination for whole body

movement and the use of hands for manipulating objects.

> Physical Skill: ability to move the whole body for physical activities such as balancing,

coordination and sports

> Dancing, Acting: to use the body in expressive, rhythmic and imitative ways

> Working with Hands: to use the hands with dexterity and skill for detailed activities and small

work

Mathematical-Logical

To think of cause and effect connections and to understand relationships among actions, objects

or ideas. To be able to calculate, quantify, consider propositions and perform complex

mathematical or logical operations. It involves inductive and deductive reasoning skills as well

as critical and creative problem-solving.

> Problem Solving: skill in organization, problem solving and logical reasoning; curiosity and

investigation

> Calculations: ability to work with numbers for mathematical operations such as addition and

division

Spatial

To think in pictures and to perceive the visual world accurately. To be able to think in three-

dimensions and to transform one's perceptions and re-create aspects of one's visual experience

via imagination. To work with objects effectively.

> Imagery: use of mental imagery for observation, artistic, creative, and other visual activities

> Artistic Design: to create artistic designs, drawings, paintings or other crafts

> Constructions: to be able to make, build or assemble things

Linguistic

To think in words and to use language to express and understand complex meanings. Sensitivity

to the meaning of words as well as the order among words, their sounds, rhythms, inflections.

To reflect on the use of language in everyday life.

> Linguistic Sensitivity: skill in the use of words for expressive and practical purposes

> Reading: skill in reading

> Writing: ability and interest in writing projects such as poems, stories, books or letters

> Speaking: skill in oral communication for persuasion, memorization and description

Interpersonal

To think about and understand another person. To have empathy and recognize

distinctions among people and to appreciate their perspectives with sensitivity to their

motives, moods and intentions. It involves interacting effectively with one or more

people in familiar, casual or working circumstances.

> Understanding People: sensitivity to and understanding of other people's moods,

feelings and point of view

> Getting Along With Others: able to maintain good relationships with other people

especially friends and siblings

> Leadership: to take a leadership role among people through problem solving and

influence

Intrapersonal

To think about and understand one's self. To be aware of one's strengths and weaknesses

and to plan effectively to achieve personal goals. It involves reflecting on and monitoring

one's r thoughts and feelings and regulating them effectively. The ability to monitor

one's self in interpersonal relationships and to act with personal efficacy.

> Knowing Myself: awareness of one's own ideas, abilities; personal decision making

skill

> Goal Awareness: awareness of goals and self correction and monitoring in light of a

goal

> Managing Feelings: ability to regulate one's feelings, moods and emotional responses

> Managing Behavior: ability to regulate one's mental activities and behavior

Innovative: To work in artistic, divergent and imaginative ways. To improvise and

create unique answers, arguments or solutions.

Technical: To work accurately, carefully. To strive for just the right answer and perform

activities in the exact way they are shown.

______________________________________________________________________

Appendix 2

Representative MIDAS-KIDS Item

______________________________________________________________________

Musical:

How well do you keep the beat when you clap your hands or tap your feet?

A= Not very well

B= Well

C= Very well

D= Excellent

E= The best

F= I don't know

Note. The wording of response choices varies according to the content of the question.

______________________________________________________________________

Table 1

Interscale Correlations, Scale Coefficient Alphas and Test-Retest Reliabilities

________________________________________________________________________

MIDAS Scales

________________________________________________________________________

Mus Kin Log Spat Ling Inter Intra Inno Tech

________________________________________________________________________

Musical .85*

Kinesthetic .54 .83

Logical .39 .46 .90

Spatial .45 .56 .42 .86

Linguistic .59 .56 .60 .58 .83

Interpersonal .48 .54 .51 .48 .69 .88

Intrapersonal .44 .50 .63 .47 .68 .72 .91

Innovation .63 .66 .52 .83 .73 .59 .53 .82

Technical .67 .75 .72 .59 .77 .63 .67 .63 .87

Test-retest .79 .79 .90 .68 .80 .81 .82 .80 .81

_______________________________________________________

Note. * Alpha reliabilities are found on the diagonal.

All Pearson correlation coefficients p<.001 for test-retest.

Scale abbreviations: Mus = Musical; Kin= Kinesthetic; Log=Math-logic; Spat=Spatial;

Ling= Linguistic; Inter= Interpersonal; Intra=Intrapersona;

Inn=Innovative;Tech=Technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 2

Parent - Child Inter-rater Statistics

________________________________________________________________________

Sample Equality Equality

Self Parent of Variances of Means

________________________________________________________________________

Scales mean sd r mean sd F Value

______________________________________________________________

Music 66% 13 .61*** 62% 18 8.40** 1.38

Kinesthetic 56 19 49*** 47 17 .31 2.71**

Spatial 56 19 .45*** 52 20 .00 .92

Logical 72 15 .60*** 73 14 1.11 .92

Linguistic 65 13 .37** 69 15 2.46 -1.54

Interpersonal 63 13 .15 59 16 3.54* 1.30

Intrapersonal 65 13 .34* 64 14 .69 .41

Innovation 57 16 .41** 54 15 .12 1.06

Technical 65 12 .46*** 63 12 .55 1.10

__________________________________________________________________

Note. N= 53

* p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001.

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Table 3

Variance Accounted for by Each Factor

________________________________________________________________________

Factor Initial Eigenvalues

Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 17.374 23.165 23.165

2 3.709 4.945 28.110

3 2.656 3.541 31.652

4 2.385 3.180 34.832

5 2.133 2.845 37.677

6 1.840 2.454 40.130

7 1.493 1.991 42.121

8 1.473 1.963 44.085

9 1.331 1.775 45.859

10 1.242 1.655 47.515

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1

Factor Scree Plot

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75

Factor Number

0

5

10

15

20

Eige

nval

ueScree Plot

________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Table 4

Factor Correlation Matrix

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 62 .4393 .608 .4194 .484 .488 .4005 .464 .476 .459 .4596 .331 .391 .293 .482 .4087 .365 .456 .249 .584 .401 .568

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Table 5

Factor Pattern Matrix using Maximum Likelihood with Promax Rotation

Factor1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ita77 .713Ita78 .590Ita73 .516Ita79 .516 -.223Ita70 .497Ite64 .487 .167Ita76 .478Ita72 .469 .244Ita75 .462 .178 .295Ita71 .457 .215Ita69 .435Ite66 .413 .318Ita80 .405 .155 .153Ite60 .399 .377Ita67 .371Ite58 .371 -.215 .266Log29 .357Ite62 .350 .257 .245Ite59 .334Ita74 .305 .177Lin47 .303 .189 .229Ite63 .296 .260Lin52 .287 -.211 .286 .251Spa33 .662Spa36 .651Spa35 .624Spa37 .619Spa40 .534Spa32 .520 .218Spa34 .388 .333 -.180Lin45 -.197 .380 .287 .240Log28 .368Spa31 .311 .237Log27 .177 .302 .179Spa39 .298 .228Kin17 .292 .211Kin16 .183 .272Mus5 -.232 .249 .226 .167Log24 .807Log26 .740

Log30 .724Log22 .703 .163Log23 .682Lin41 .557 .184Lin44 .290Kin20 .788Kin12 .686Kin13 -.162 .660 .161Spa38 .603Kin19 .462Kin14 .399Kin15 .373Kin21 .268 .239Mus8 .698 -.223Mus2 .670Mus3 .644Mus9 .569Kin18 .260 .547Mus6 .162 .514Mus11 .167 .417Lin46 .639Ite61 .366 .602 -.290Ite65 .405 .428Ite56 .265 .386Lin43 .309 .384Ite57 .230 .323Log25 .214 .273 -.318Lin42 .223 .151 .278 .170Lin50 -.156 -.161 .606Lin53 .195 .533Lin48 -.219 .508Ite54 .289 .409Lin51 .255 .326Ite55 .278 .194 .228 .311Lin49 .188 .271

Note. Values less than .20 not printed.

Abbreviations. Predicted item factors. Lin = Linguistic; Mus= Musical; Kin=

Kinesthetic; Log= Logical-mathematical; Ite= Interpersonal; Ita= Intrapersonal; Spa=

Spatial.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Table 6

Factor Structure Matrix

Factor1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ita77 .628 .271 .303 .259 .252 .313 .289Ita72 .603 .275 .518 .319 .246 .238 .264Ita73 .595 .374 .394 .300 .247 .304 .334Ita80 .588 .338 .470 .447 .303 .368 .271Ita70 .561 .237 .401 .260 .267 .297 .301Ita78 .559 .312 .308 .249 .248 .229 .238Ita71 .555 .244 .458 .231 .245 .248 .265Ita67 .544 .365 .430 .406 .214 .292 .278Ita79 .541 .251 .338 .324 .295 .308Lin47 .538 .330 .465 .415 .291 .272 .397Ite64 .537 .182 .398 .224 .228 .220 .302Ita69 .520 .289 .375 .266 .224 .288 .266Ita76 .510 .291 .282 .272 .309 .334 .301Ita75 .498 .359 .288 .213 .214 .397 .225Ite63 .487 .367 .339 .347 .303 .371 .453Ite66 .470 .313 .278 .261 .228 .409 .219Log29 .463 .226 .339 .321 .278 .242 .269Ite62 .452 .247 .244 .418 .264 .275 .394Ita74 .405 .340 .232 .200 .285 .366 .353Ite59 .364 .159 .193 .260 .170 .218 .259Spa35 .333 .659 .258 .316 .321 .290 .360Spa33 .257 .656 .193 .311 .286 .222 .371Spa40 .385 .646 .335 .450 .366 .277 .353Spa36 .273 .640 .187 .304 .264 .242 .317Spa37 .279 .599 .189 .224 .240 .280 .283Lin45 .275 .567 .309 .330 .434 .543 .540Spa32 .192 .518 .199 .227 .362 .311Spa34 .341 .499 .375 .480 .196 .174Log28 .336 .453 .303 .346 .152 .153 .196Log27 .423 .441 .414 .360 .154 .194 .191Kin16 .392 .434 .310 .374 .314 .229 .246Spa31 .182 .408 .250 .265 .385 .343Kin17 .216 .402 .233 .326 .284 .338 .210Log30 .473 .283 .738 .345 .238 .189 .159Log24 .389 .169 .722 .299Log23 .453 .290 .704 .357 .255 .284 .208Log22 .432 .263 .697 .344 .258 .332 .253Log26 .408 .202 .696 .304 .170 .160 .153Lin41 .416 .315 .601 .311 .338 .387 .342Lin44 .427 .320 .456 .310 .339 .350 .337

Log25 .366 .337 .412 .280 .179Kin20 .329 .293 .355 .749 .278 .320 .282Kin12 .332 .280 .313 .676 .343 .234 .252Spa38 .355 .376 .363 .638 .178 .297 .201Kin13 .159 .227 .590 .349 .242 .347Kin19 .414 .345 .388 .573 .289 .254 .206Kin15 .334 .335 .334 .484 .271 .186 .203Kin14 .231 .278 .217 .425 .190 .165Kin18 .224 .270 .435 .661 .438 .464Mus2 .214 .238 .174 .270 .656 .260 .392Mus8 .302 .249 .226 .198 .652 .166 .384Mus3 .363 .313 .317 .290 .633 .297 .308Mus9 .262 .203 .598 .360 .395Mus6 .389 .324 .398 .395 .579 .332 .301Mus11 .317 .193 .303 .219 .409 .160 .182Kin21 .182 .340 .396 .408 .314 .334Mus5 .356 .228 .381 .270 .360Lin46 .419 .342 .352 .356 .276 .655 .306Ite61 .450 .279 .279 .255 .245 .573 .185Lin42 .462 .448 .458 .411 .503 .560 .529Lin43 .330 .484 .316 .307 .286 .520 .378Ite65 .497 .286 .300 .311 .219 .507 .293Lin52 .500 .222 .375 .371 .363 .506 .485Ite60 .484 .235 .265 .362 .324 .500 .321Ite56 .440 .232 .361 .318 .237 .458 .244Ite57 .305 .211 .157 .231 .192 .378 .218Lin53 .296 .425 .221 .271 .425 .334 .617Lin50 .315 .350 .237 .173 .311 .221 .569Lin51 .334 .288 .248 .304 .433 .501 .542Ite55 .459 .313 .242 .430 .333 .487 .524Ite54 .443 .336 .249 .370 .325 .270 .509Ite58 .453 .383 .174 .302 .359 .390 .492Lin48 .271 .259 .177 .238 .245 .458Lin49 .364 .396 .280 .247 .297 .373 .445Spa39 .211 .413 .215 .332 .343 .422

Note. Values less than .20 not printed.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 7

Representative Sample Scale Statistics

_______________________________________________________________________

Grades

K - 2* 3 - 8** all***

______________________________________________________________________

Scales m sd m sd m sd

Musical 50% 16 56% 18 54 18

Kinesthetic 50 17 54 18 53 18

Logical 44 18 53 20 51 19

Spatial 55 19 57 20 57 20

Linguistic 45 17 54 18 52 18

Interpersonal 49 16 54 18 53 18

Intrapersonal 46 17 55 18 52 18

_____________________________________________________________________

Note. N= 1,679,

* n=407, ** n=1,272. ***n=1,679

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Table 8

Scale Means and SD Per Grades K - 8*

______________________________________________________________________

Grade Mean and SD

______________________________________________________________________

Scale K sd 1 sd 2 sd 3 sd 4 sd 5 sd 6 sd 7 sd 8 sd ____

Musical 48 18 51 17 51 18 57 19 59 18 58 18 56 18 53 19 55 19

Kinesthetic 47 15 50 18 53 19 61 20 61 19 58 18 53 17 50 18 50 17

Spatial 52 19 57 19 56 20 62 21 63 21 59 21 57 19 54 22 52 17

Logical 42 18 44 18 45 19 56 20 55 21 54 20 52 19 53 19 52 18

Linguistic 43 16 44 17 47 18 56 20 57 21 56 18 54 17 52 19 50 16

Interpersonal 47 17 49 14 50 19 53 21 56 21 56 20 53 17 54 18 54 16

Intrapersonal 46 17 46 16 46 18 53 19 53 23 57 19 54 17 54 18 55 15

Innovation 46 16 50 18 49 16 54 21 55 21 55 20 51 17 49 18 48 16

Technical 43 15 45 14 50 19 62 18 62 18 59 26 56 15 54 16 53 15

______________________________________________________________________

Note. N= 1,679

*Grade n: K=106, 1=155, 2=146, 3=152, 4=141, 5=187, 6=312, 7=320, 8=160.

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Table 9

High and Low Mean Group Scores for Scales

_______________________________________________________________________

Scales

m Groups m Groups

High Low

_______________________________________________________________________

Kinesthetic

67 Dancers 55 Vocal

61 Gymnasts 55 LD

60 Drama 55 Gifted

Musical

72 Musicians 54 Sports

69 Vocalists 53 Artists

67 Orchestra 49 LD

Spatial

70 Artists 58 Sports

67 Gymnasts 56 Gifted

63 Musicians 52 LD

Logical-Math

71 Gifted 52 Sports

64 Orchestra 51 Gymnasts

61 Musicians 48 LD

Linguistic

66 Drama 56 Social

64 Vocalists 55 Sports

64 Orchestra 46 LD

Interpersonal

64 Dancers 55 Gymnasts

63 Drama 55 Sports

63 Orchestra 49 LD

Intrapersonal

68 Orchestra 57 Vocal

65 Dancers 57 Gymnasts

63 Gifted 47 LD

Innovative

60 Drama 53 Sports

59 Orchestra 53 Social

58 Artists, Musicians, Dancers 48 LD

Technical

65 Musicians 58 Artists, Gymnasts

64 Gifted, Dancers 56 Sports

62 Drama, Orchestra 50 LD

______________________________________________________________________

Note. Groups:

Visual and Performing Arts:

Dancers, n = 56;Vocal, n= 55;Drama, n= 55; Musicians, n= 115; Orchestra, n=28; Artists, n=

114.

Other Groups: LD, n= 44; Gifted, n= 100; Sports, n= 63; Gymnasts, n= 16; Social, n= 34.

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 10

Correlations Between MIDAS Scales and IQ Scores

________________________________________________________________________

I.Q. Scores

Verbal Perform Full Scale

MI _______________________________________________

Scales

Musical .41*** .13 .32**

Kinesthetic -.04 -.06 -.05

Logical .57*** .39** .54***

Spatial -.01 .09 .05

Linguistic .60*** .22 .48***

Interpersonal .14 .28*** .05

Intrapersonal .58*** .36** .54***

Innovation .23 -.04 .13

Technical .46*** .31** .44***

________________________________________________________________________

Note. N=62

AT= Academically Talented, n=53; LD= Learning Disabled, n=9.

Pearson correlation coefficients * p< .05 ** p< .01 *** p< .001

______________________________________________________________________

Documents

Running head: MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES ASSESSMENT … · Web viewDevelopment and Validation of a Multiple Intelligences. Assessment for Children. C. Branton Shearer, Ph.D. Multiple