Matching Items (2)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

152231-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This study examined the relations between cognitive ability, socioemotional competency (SEC), and achievement in gifted children. Data were collected on children between the ages of 8 and 15 years (n = 124). Children were assessed via teacher reports of SEC, standardized cognitive assessment, and standardized achievement assessment. Composite achievement significantly

This study examined the relations between cognitive ability, socioemotional competency (SEC), and achievement in gifted children. Data were collected on children between the ages of 8 and 15 years (n = 124). Children were assessed via teacher reports of SEC, standardized cognitive assessment, and standardized achievement assessment. Composite achievement significantly correlated with all areas of SEC on the Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA). Cognitive ability significantly correlated with all areas of SEC as well. Composite cognitive ability significantly correlated with all composite achievement, as well as with achievement in all subject areas assessed. Achievement scores tended to be higher in older age groups in comparison to younger age groups. When gender differences were found (in some areas of SEC and in language achievement), they tended to be higher in females. Gender moderated the relation between SEC and composite achievement. The areas of SEC that best predicted achievement, over-and-above other SEC scales, were Optimistic Thinking, Self-Awareness, and Relationship Skills. While cognitive scores did not significantly predict achievement when controlling for SEC, SEC did significantly predict achievement over-and-above cognitive ability scores. Overall findings suggest that SEC may be important in children's school achievement; thus it is important for schools and families to promote the development of SEC in gifted children, especially in the areas of optimism and self-awareness.
ContributorsKong, Tiffany (Author) / Caterino, Linda (Thesis advisor) / Naglieri, Jack (Committee member) / Brulles, Dina (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
141320-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

This chapter integrates from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and social psychology the basic science of bias in human judgment as relevant to judgments and decisions by forensic mental health professionals. Forensic mental health professionals help courts make decisions in cases when some question of psychology pertains to the legal issue,

This chapter integrates from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and social psychology the basic science of bias in human judgment as relevant to judgments and decisions by forensic mental health professionals. Forensic mental health professionals help courts make decisions in cases when some question of psychology pertains to the legal issue, such as in insanity cases, child custody hearings, and psychological injuries in civil suits. The legal system itself and many people involved, such as jurors, assume mental health experts are “objective” and untainted by bias. However, basic psychological science from several branches of the discipline suggest the law’s assumption about experts’ protection from bias is wrong. Indeed, several empirical studies now show clear evidence of (unintentional) bias in forensic mental health experts’ judgments and decisions. In this chapter, we explain the science of how and why human judgments are susceptible to various kinds of bias. We describe dual-process theories from cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and social psychology that can help explain these biases. We review the empirical evidence to date specifically about cognitive and social psychological biases in forensic mental health judgments, weaving in related literature about biases in other types of expert judgment, with hypotheses about how forensic experts are likely affected by these biases. We close with a discussion of directions for future research and practice.

ContributorsNeal, Tess M.S. (Author) / Hight, Morgan (Author) / Howatt, Brian C. (Author) / Hamza, Cassandra (Author)
Created2017-04-30