ArticleBMC psychology2026
Debunking myths about giftedness: development and psychometric validation of the myths about giftedness scale in the Turkish cultural context.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMyths about gifted education persist widely among educators, families, and society, often leading to misconceptions that hinder the accurate identification and appropriate support of gifted individuals. Such myths may negatively affect educational policies and psychological well-being of gifted students. Despite the critical role these beliefs play, there is a scarcity of culturally valid instruments currently exists in Türkiye to systematically assess prevalent myths about giftedness. Addressing this gap, the present study aimed to develop and psychometrically validate a scale for measuring myths related to giftedness within the Turkish cultural context. This contributes not only to educational psychology but also to cross-cultural research on cognitive biases and social perceptions.
methodsThe study was conducted in two phases. In Study 1, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on data collected from 350 participants to explore the underlying factor structure of the scale. Study 2 involved confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with 249 participants to verify the factor model identified in Study 1. The scale’s internal consistency and reliability were examined using Cronbach’s α, ordinal α, McDonald’s ω coefficients, and corrected item-total correlations. Ethical approval was obtained and informed consent was secured from all participants.
resultsEFA results supported a unidimensional factor structure comprising 25 items, accounting for a significant proportion of variance. CFA confirmed this structure with acceptable model fit indices (χ²/df = 2.622, CFI = 0.946, TLI = 0.941, GFI = 0.982, AGFI = 0.973, RMSEA = 0.081, 95% CI [0.074, 0.088], SRMR = 0.095). The scale demonstrated strong reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.884; ordinal α = 0.920; McDonald’s ω coefficients ranging from 0.885 to 0.894). Item-total correlations ranged between 0.31 and 0.64, indicating good item discrimination.
conclusionsThe Myths About Giftedness Scale is a psychometrically promising tool that can effectively identify prevalent misconceptions about giftedness among families, educators, and stakeholders. After examining the psychometric properties of the scale on a more homogeneous and random sample, its application can inform educational practices and policies, promote accurate identification of gifted individuals, and support psychological well-being. Moreover, the scale’s cultural adaptation enables meaningful cross-cultural comparisons and advances research on social cognition related to giftedness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.