SOI Systems

Call us: 1.604.782.2844

Our Research

Experimental/Control Group Evaluations

Since 1963, many experimental/control group evaluations of student academic achievement have been conducted relative to the SOI premise that intellectual functions can be trained. SOI is the educational application created by M. Meeker (1969; 1991; Meeker, Meeker & Roid, 1985; SOI Systems, 1997) of the Structure of Intellect model originated by J. P. Guilford (1956, 1959, 1967, 1981; International Society, 1988). It was Guilford who first proved that the intellect comprises multiple functions. In the main, these evaluations of SOI students’ academic achievement were in the area of gifted education, due to the paradox that only gifted students were felt to require cognitive development. Thus, Manning (1975), working with 490 gifted students in a three-year Title III-funded project, determined that SOI is an effective tool to help highly intelligent children use their minds more creatively. In Grades 1-8, according to a series of uncorrelated one-tailed t-tests, three-year gains were found to be statistically significant on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking.

However, not all researchers have experimented with SOI cognitive development in the context of gifted education. Feldman (1975), via factor and regression analyses, verified the existence of specific SOI abilities in 6-year-old students. His analysis of Stanford Achievement Test data further revealed that early readers approach text as a sequence of several figures rather than as a set of phonetic symbols or semantic expressions. And Roid (1984) applied factor analysis to confirm that the 26 SOI assessment subtests reveal strong evidence for the construct validity of the figural, symbolic and semantic dimensions of the SOI model. Roid’s verification of these three dimensions of cognition is particularly important for the early grades, where the success or failure of reading instruction may depend on the student’s figural/symbolic/semantic strengths and weaknesses.

Hays & Pereira (1972), working with 117 low-SES students, found that SOI methods and materials can produce educational change in a typical public school environment. Participants were randomly assigned to control and treatment groups, which were kept intact for two successive academic years. Post-testing with the Gilmore Oral Reading Test demonstrated that training in the SOI ‘visual memory’ ability led to a statistically significant improvement in reading achievement of the first-graders (reliability .88; with SEM of 4.3). And Goodloe-Kaplan (1986) determined the construct validity and diagnostic utility of SOI assessment instrument for students from typical and atypical cultural backgrounds through a cross-validation study in a large suburban school district.

Starting in the mid-1980s, educators began to see the fallacy in reserving cognitive development for the gifted few, rather than offering it to the many. Meeker & Meeker were inspired to integrate SOI with learning therapy-development of sensory integration and visual perception-after consulting on two mid-1980s programs in Washington state that introduced learning therapy into the classroom setting (see “Non-Comparative Evaluations, Case Studies, Surveys,” below). Meyers (1998) reports that Meeker & Meeker’s original system of remediating sensory integration dysfunctions, by means of therapeutic exercises on a rocking balance board, produced improvements in a group of 6 students on 13 of the 26 SOI assessment subtests, including comprehension of figural, symbolic and semantic content, and psychomotor coordination. With other data showing correlations between SOI growth and academic achievement, the findings that learning therapy improves SOI abilities-e.g., Meyers-suggests that learning therapy can have a positive effect on academic achievement.

By 1992, therefore, Gurcsik was advising educators seeking curriculum reform to look no further than their gifted programs for successful schoolwide designs such as SOI.

Evaluation of Comparison Groups

M. Meeker (1985) explains that the premise that intellectual functions can be trained is the essence of the SOI model. For her original work on what would become SOI, she was awarded the EdD degree for correlating immediate memory with academic achievement (M. Meeker, 1966). She found that math and English achievement correlates to immediate memory abilities which SOI instruments assess and remediate. In particular, this study of 150 ninth-grade boys with 90-110 IQs, found that SOI visual and auditory memory abilities are differentiated, rather than memory being a global process, as it was considered at the time. Poor and good auditory memory of symbolic sequences were found to correlate highly with low and high math achievement, respectively. Poor and good visual memory of symbolic sequences were found to correlate highly with low and high English achievement, respectively. These data are also the subject of Meeker & Meyers (1971).

Ball (1975), in a study of over 2,400 black and white five-year-olds, found that race is not useful as a predictor of cognitive performance. In fact, environmental factors-e.g., mother’s level of education, father’s occupation, marital status of parents, structured/unstructured home life, parent-child play-were a more useful predictor. In the great nature/nurture debate over intellect, Ball’s findings support the benefits of nurturing student’s intellects, which, as stated above, is the essence of SOI.

These other evaluations were mainly in the area of gifted education, due to the paradox discussed above, that only the gifted were felt to require cognitive development. When educators started offering cognitive development to average- and low-performing students in the mid-1980s, what would become the Bridges program was prompted by Meeker & Meeker’s consultation on the 1984-86 “Integrated Instructional Model for Handicapped Children” program in one Seattle elementary school that enrolled Learning Disabled students (Pattee, 1998). Integrating SOI with learning therapy, this program’s most significant outcome was that WISC-R scores increased a mean 23.14 points (from 90.29 to 113.43) among a population that had previously been unable to make academic growth, no matter what instructional model was implemented. This Seattle program was replicated as the “Integrated Learning System” ( Fidalgo Elementary, 1991; All Children, 1994), an intensive SOI application in 1988-93, funded by Washington State’s “Schools for the 21st Century Project,” and also with the consultation of Meeker & Meeker. Summarizing a number of MA theses funded by this state project, WISC-R scores rose by 16.8 points (from mean 104 to mean 121); mean MAT Language scores rose 17.1%ile points; mean MAT Math scores, 22.5%ile points; and mean MAT Reading scores, 27.5%ile points; the Resource Room exited greater than 40% of its students, and the Reading Lab exited greater then 65% of its students.

Under the “Bridges” tradename, SOI integrated with learning therapy is being replicated nationwide by Intellectual Development Systems. Teaching Research Division (1998) represents a 6-month interim report on an 18-month implementation of the Bridges program by three rural elementary schools in Adrian , Astoria and Vale, OR, starting Spring Semester 1998. The authors had just a half-year’s data by which to evaluate a year-long program, including 1997 and 1998 scores on the math and language arts portions of the Oregon Statewide Assessments, for Grades 3 and 5. While they expectedly found no differences between the three evaluated schools and three comparison schools, they did produce positive qualitative data (see “Non-Comparative Evaluations, Case Studies, Surveys,” following).

Bradfield & Slocumb (1997a, 1997b) compared students’ math and reading performance on the TAAS to that of student groups from comparable schools during the 1996-97 school year in the Lamar Consolidated Independent School District ( Rosenberg , TX ). In their study of five schools completing their first year of implementing Bridges (1997a), they found that those schools showed significantly greater year-to-year gains on the TAAS math and reading tests, 1996 to 1997; in most cases, student groups made greater than one year’s academic growth during the 1997 school year. In their study of a school completing its second year of implementing the Bridges program (1997b), they found that it positively impacted learning for all student groups, and particularly for low-SES and Hispanic student group, as measured by the TAAS and ITBS.

R. Meeker (1998) re-visited the data from the same school for which Bradfield & Slocumb evaluated year-two outcomes (1997b). However, his analysis included data from the 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 school years, and it included individual student scores. For all cases where a comparison can be made (math and reading, separately, for each Grades 3, 4 and 5), he found that the TAAS scores of Bridges students were significantly higher after the program was implemented.

Tracey (1997a, 1997b) re-visited the data from both Bradfield & Slocumb reports (1997a, 1997b), as well as districtwide and statewide year-to-year TAAS data. In one analysis (1997a), he compared year-to-year TAAS scores for student groups in all five schools that first implemented the Bridges program during 1996-97. He found that ‘considerable’ to ‘substantial’ increases in achieving TAAS passing rates was accomplished in that one year by student groups, compared to districtwide and statewide norms.

In Tracey’s other analysis (1997b) of 1997 TAAS performance in the Lamar Consolidated Independent School District, he concentrated on the math and reading performance of low-SES students in Grades 4 and 5, finding that those who participated in Bridges outscored all students in comparable schools on the 1997 TAAS, as measured by their growth from the 1996 TAAS administration. The Bridges students materially outperformed the comparison groups by surpassing the 3-point threshold of significance in year-to-year TAAS growth in all four comparisons (Grade 4 math and reading, and Grade 5 math and reading).

James & Tracey (1999) conducted a comparison group evaluation of Bridges as implemented by Southwestern Oregon Community College within the ‘boot camp’ correctional education program at Shutter Creek Correctional Institution ( North Bend , Oregon ). The study compared a group of the first five platoons (N = 400) for which the design’s IPP component was provided by the college, and the last five platoons (N = 391) for which the IPP component was not provided. Findings included greater ABE-level math and reading competency, as measured by the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System, than that historically observed by college faculty among learners for which IPP treatment is indicated.

R. Meeker (1999a) analyzed longitudinal data from Lamar Consolidated ISD for 1993-94 through 1997-98 for three suburban elementary schools. One of these schools was implementing Bridges for the third consecutive year (i.e., the same school evaluated in Bradfield & Slocumb, 1997b); the other two, for the second consecutive year (i.e., two of the schools evaluated in Bradfield & Slocumb, 1997a). His analysis establishes that Bridges is moving TAAS-measured reading and math performance of these three schools significantly closer to the district’s goal of TAAS mastery for their total populations. In all cases where a comparison can be made (math and reading, separately, for each of Grades 3, 4 and 5), the TAAS scores of Bridges students were significantly higher after the design was implemented than before it was implemented.

Summarizing the first 15 years of the IPP component of Bridges, R. Meeker (1999b) explains that the median duration of any student’s individualized IPP treatment plan is 31 hours, with a range of 15 to 182 hours; thus, easily accommodated within a single school year. For the 1997-98 school year, of those IPP students who completed their treatment plans (e.g., were not moved or transferred, did not graduate or drop out), 98.34% (1,360 of 1,383) were judged successful by classroom teachers according to the criterion of having developed the ability to keep pace with mainstream instruction. He concludes that the IPP component is significantly more cost effective than traditional approaches to remedial education.

Non-Comparative Evaluations, Case Studies, Surveys

Starting in 1963 with Meeker’s own work (1975), one fruitful area for non-comparative research, case studies and surveys has been the development of instruction based on SOI principles and/or on instructors’ fore-knowledge of students’ SOI strengths and weaknesses. For example, Gray & Youngs (1975) found that students improved their ability to generate hypotheses during university problem-solving activities after their instructors had learned SOI techniques of facilitating students’ hypothesizing-a central element of, and crucial to the success of, the creative problem-solving process. Also, Raile (1978) found that a students’ SOI strengths and weaknesses are predictive of their success in learning foreign languages. Working with 300 high school students in the Greater Los Angeles Area, Raile also uncovered individual differences in intellectual power attributable to different cultures’ practices in nurturing children’s intellects; e.g., Hispanic students present stronger auditory memory of symbolic sequences, such as strings of numbers or programming code, than do white students; while whites present stronger comprehension of semantics than do Hispanics. Again in the nature/nurture debate over intellect, Raile’s findings support the benefits of nurturing student’s intellects, which, as stated above, is the essence of SOI: students in first-year language classes had significantly lower cognitive aptitudes for vocabulary mastery than did more advanced language students, implying that language study itself is a form of cognitive ‘weight-lifting’ for the intellectual power required to learn a foreign language. Like Raile, Slaby (1986) fund that certain SOI measure are predictive of students’ success in high school geometry. Analyzing SOI scores and geometry grades to 286 students, Slaby found that boys generally scored higher than girls on spatial SOI subtests, and that certain spatial SOI subtests are predictors of geometry success. Again, the implication is that SOI assessment and training can elevate girls’ spatial-mathematical abilities, opening to women such careers as engineering, science, medicine, aeronautics, computer science and architecture.

Another fruitful area of research interest has been the nurturing of gifted-level intelligence among minority students previously labeled “potentially gifted.” Working with Hispanic boys in California, Meeker & Meeker (1982) found a statistically significant increase in cognitive functioning, more than one-third of a Standard Deviation and empirically due to SOI training (rather than, say, general maturation and experience). Sisk’s (1994) Systematic Training for Education Programs for Underserved Pupils project was a 1990-93 demonstration in 12 school districts in 4 states, funded by the USDE. Sisk proved her hypothesis that at least 50% more minority students would qualify for their local gifted/talented programs if they participated in cognitive and intellectual training based on the Guilford/Meeker Structure of Intellect and Gardner ‘s Multiple Intelligences.

One more fruitful area has been learning therapy, which, as discussed above, is a foundation of the Bridges program (Hahn, 1998). In this domain, Meeker & Meeker (1992) created the Individualized Practice Protocol (IPP) method, whereby paraprofessionals may remediate certain perceptual and motor dysfunctions that often impair students’ abilities in comprehension, which is the most basic mental operation in the SOI model; i.e., attention, concentration, focus, mindfulness. Because some 75% of classroom tasks depend on the student’s ability to mind what the eyes carry to the brain, Workman (1988) well expresses the visual dimension of comprehension: students must integrate visual perceptions with the concurrent and competing perceptual messages of hearing, touch and movement/balance, which integration is, for successful students, usually automatic; while, for unsuccessful learners, it can be a nonstop struggle. IPP development of visual perception increases the student’s control of information from all the senses. IPP development of visual perception Integrated Practice Protocol methodology develops better control of information from all the senses. Students who present dyslexia, developmental delays, etc., are responsive to SOI-based learning therapy, reports Weiss (1992). Weiss and, separately, Hersch (1998) report that Students who present ADD and ADHD are responsive to SOI-based learning therapy.

For the 1997-98 school year at East High School in Wichita ( Why do we need an IPP/SOI program? 1998), the faculty compared the predicted likelihood of passing four core courses (English, Introduction to Algebra, Algebra 1, and World Cultures) for urban at-risk ninth-graders participating in the Bridges Learning Development program to their actual passing rates. The pass/fail predictions were based on an analysis of the students’ MAT reading and math subtests, as informed by the district’s historical pass/fail data on students with like MAT scores. Most of these at-risk ninth-graders enrolled in at least three of the four core courses. The faculty found that Bridges had a notable effect on academic performance of the 67 students studied. A significant mean of 60.50% of these ninth-graders passed English, Introduction to Algebra, Algebra 1, and World Cultures, although these students were predicted to fail these courses.

Sisk (1998) evaluated the Bridges program as implemented for the first time by six rural schools in the Paris (TX) Independent School District , in 1997-98. Her findings are that the program is consistently making a significant difference with at-risk students. Sisk’s data found significant increases in achievement on ITBS scores for Grade 2 and on TAAS scores for Grades 3-12. Of particular interest is her analysis of students who participated in Bridges, as compared to students who participated in that program as well as in as many as five other programs overlaid on their schools’ curricula. Among these ‘Bridges Only’ students, the majority showed year-to-year TAAS improvements in both math and reading, and most were above the Texas standard score that represents one year’s growth in one school year.

Statistical Consulting Services (1998) evaluated the Bridges program as implemented for the first time by a rural K-8 school in Palo Verde, AZ, in 1997-98. Comparisons included pre- and post-test scores on the CogAT and the SOI, Form CR, assessments; and year-to-year scores on the Stanford 9 assessment. The gains on the SOI, Form CR, assessment were generally positive and reliably different from zero. Beyond Bridges-specific measures, for two grade levels there was evidence of reliable improvements in Stanford 9 mathematics scores. However, there are no discernible effects of the program on Stanford 9 reading scores or CogAT scores.

Teaching Research Division (1998) represents a 6-month interim report on an 18-month implementation of the Bridges program by three rural elementary schools in Adrian , Astoria and Vale, OR, starting Spring Semester 1998. Via surveys, case studies, and focus groups, the authors produced qualitative data that reveal mixed opinions of Bridges among teachers, students and parents.

Bradfield & Slocumb (1997a, 1997b) include survey data that indicate staff consensus that Bridges improved student performance as measured by TAAS. These data also indicate that the program made students better critical thinkers. Parents expressed that the program made their children better readers and, generally, more thoughtful children.

Non-Academic Indicators

Since at least 1985, data on non-academic indicators have been researched, relative to the SOI premise that intellectual functions can be trained. Laine, Blank & Clarke (1985) hypothesized that the Guilford/Meeker Structure of Intellect provides the taxonomy of cognitive styles that is amenable to empirical testing and heuristic expansion. In particular, Laine et al. argue that, where teachers are able to identify the strengths and weaknesses among a student’s multiple factors of intellect, instructional methods better complement the characteristics of the student’s cognitive powers.

Evaluating the Bridges program, Sisk (1998) found significantly positive differences in attendance and disciplinary referrals. She also includes survey data that indicate agreement among teachers, students and parents that Bridges has produced improvements in these schools’ educational climate. These survey data show that the program is impacting how students feel about themselves, through the development of such strong life principles as perseverance, excellence and a strong work ethic. Sisk also found satisfaction among parents for the community approach taken by the Paris District, where Bridges-trained teachers met individually with students’ families to explain the Bridges program, as well as to explain the cognitive strengths and weaknesses of that family’s student.

Statistical Consulting Services (1998) conducted brief structured interviews that reveal the Palo Verde staff was markedly positive about the Bridges program, to which they attributed behavioral changes observed in students during daily activity.

Teaching Research Division’s (1998) surveys, case studies, and focus groups produced qualitative data that reveal generally positive opinions of Bridges among teachers, students and parents. Anecdotally, staff attributed some improved student behavior and self-esteem to the program; however, the authors cautioned that their interim report was too premature to determine detectable program effect in these areas from the Bridges program.

Bradfield & Slocumb’s (1987b) student surveys found that students were positive about the effect of the Bridges program on their learning.

Interviewed by the design developer (Intellectual Development Systems, 1999), Pat Smith, Superintendent of the Lenoir City School District (Lenoir City, Tennessee), reports noticeable improvements in behavior of individual students, enhancing the learning environment of whole schools: “We were surprised at how quickly we saw results from students’ experiences in the [Bridges] Lab, especially in the areas of handwriting and in the areas of student behavior and student discipline.”

In their comparison group evaluation of Bridges as implemented by Southwestern Oregon Community College within the ‘boot camp’ correctional education program at Shutter Creek Correctional Institution (North Bend, Oregon), James & Tracey (1999) show that there has been no recidivism (defined as a new crime since an inmate’s graduation from the boot camp) since the last of the studied platoons graduated in mid-1997. And Bridges appears to have saved Oregon taxpayers $356,774 in reduced costs because boot camp graduates have a mean length of 333 days commuted from their sentences, and the IPP inmates from the first five platoons for which IPP was provided graduated from Shutter Creek at a 44% higher rate than predicted. Ongoing, this should save the taxpayers of Oregon at least $194,604 per calendar year in eliminated ‘bed/day’ costs.

External Technical Support and Assistance

With acknowledged expertise in schoolwide reform and improvement, Bridges provides high-quality external support and assistance from, two entities that support a school’s adoption of the Bridges program. The first is Meeker & Meeker’s organization, SOI Systems ( Vida , OR ), which has unique experience and expertise in schoolwide reform and implementation, dating back to the 1960s. Systematic school restructuring has been a career focus of Dr. Mary Meeker (e.g., 1966, 1969, 1983, 1991). Likewise, it has been the career focus of Dr. Robert Meeker (Ed.D., University of Southern California ), who has designed schoolwide reforms for such institutions as UCLA and System Development Corporation (e.g., R. Meeker & Meyers, 1971; R. Meeker et al., 1986).

The second entity that supports the Bridges program is Intellectual Development Systems (the vendor which supplies all program materials and training). This company was founded in 1996 by the Hon. William E. Brock (US Labor Secretary, 1985-87) to deliver a fully researched and proven program that improves the ability of every learner to learn, regardless of age or inherent intelligence. Intellectual Development Systems quickly became the national service organization to spread the schoolwide SOI design farther and faster than SOI Systems could do alone. Brock’s lifelong political mission has been reform of American education – on which he sees depending the survival of American democracy.

Brock built Intellectual Development Systems around the operations of SOI Service Co. by acquiring that enterprise. SOI Service – owned and operated by Diane Hochstein, who collaborated on the development of the schoolwide SOI design with Meeker & Meeker – had been the exclusive implementer of that design after it was originated in the early 1990s. Hochstein is responsible for all Bridges staff development, technical assistance, design implementation, and quality control. She has worked with Meeker & Meeker since the late 1980s and has long been recognized in the international SOI community as one of its foremost practitioners and a prominent leader in SOI implementation. In addition to Hochstein, the executives and staff of SOI Service were appointed as the core of the Customer Service function of Intellectual Development Systems.

Further, Brock engaged Dr. Richard Tracey (Ph.D., University of Washington ) as Vice President of Intellectual Development Systems. His schoolwide reform activities dating back to 1980, Dr. Tracey first explored reforms of the English/Language Arts curriculum, focusing on the then new technology of word processing, under National Endowment for the Humanities funding. Subsequently growing less sanguine about the role of computers in education, he more narrowly focused his attention on schools’ approaches to literacy and to the cognition and perception foundational to semantic/ verbal/linguistic reasoning. In this regard, Dr. Tracey is currently collaborating with Dr. R. Meeker on the design for a ‘world class’ school that expands the Bridges/SOI Model School design with the Total Quality Management principles applied by enterprises such as Motorola, into which corporation both Dr. Tracey and Dr. R. Meeker have separately and together introduced those same SOI assessments, materials, and strategies during the 1990s. These efforts were the substance of Dr.Tracey’s presentation to the 8th National Conference on Creating the Quality School , “Designing a World Class School .”

References

Ball, R. S. (1975). Comparison of thinking abilities of five-year-old white and black children in relation to certain environmental factors. In M. Meeker (ed.), Collected Readings , Vol. I (pp. 155-178). El Segundo , CA : SOI Institute.

Bradfield, P., & Slocumb, P. (1997a). Student performance in SOI Model Schools in the Lamar Consolidated Independent School District . Rosenberg , TX . Unpublished study.]

Bradfield, P., & Slocumb, P. (1997b). Travis Elementary: An interim evaluation report: Year Two. Rosenberg , TX . Unpublished study.

The brain as curriculum. (1991). Anacortes , WA : Fidalgo Elementary School .

Feldman, B. (1975). The Structure of Intellect and learning to read. In M. Meeker (ed.), Collected Readings , Vol. I (pp. 88-114). El Segundo , CA : SOI Institute.

Fidalgo Elementary School ‘s 21st Century program: Project review. (1994). Anacortes , WA : Fidalgo Elementary School .

Goodloe-Kaplan, B. (1986). Construct validity and diagnostic utility of the Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test for black and other intermediate grade students evaluated for gifted program placement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania .

Gray, C. E., & Youngs, R. C. (1975). Utilizing the divergent production matrix of the Structure of Intellect model in the development of teaching strategies. In M. Meeker (ed.), Collected Readings , Vol. I (pp. 179-195). El Segundo , CA : SOI Institute.

Guilford , J. P. (1956). The Structure of Intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267-293;

Guilford , J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American Psychologist, 14 , 469-479.

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

Guilford , J. P. (1981). A map for an intelligent education. Education , 101 (4), 311-314.

Gurcsik, B. (1992). Curriculum reform???? Look no further than your gifted program for help. Network News & Views, 11 (5), 96-97.

Hahn, C. (1998, November 30). Deconstructing the intellect. Forbes, 162, 128-130.

Hays, B. M., & Pereira, E. R. (1972). Effect of visual memory training on reading ability of kindergarten and first grade children. Journal of Experimental Education, 41, 33-38.

Hersch, B. (1998). SOI and ADD/ADHD. In M. Meeker (ed.), SOI Newsletter: Reports of SOI studies 1983-1998 (pp. 98-100). Vida , OR : SOI Systems.

International Society for Intelligence Education. (1988). An odyssey of the SOI model: Autobiography of Dr. J. P. Guilford . Tokyo : Author.

Intellectual Development Systems (Producer). (1999). Bridges: Bridging the gap between desire to learn and the ability to learn [Promotional Video]. (Available from Intellectual Development Systems, Inc., 49 Old Solomons Island Road, Suite 206 , Annapolis , MD 21401 .)

James, M., & Tracey, R. (1999). Climbing to the SUMMIT : Academic achievement among dysfunctional learners in a ‘boot camp’ corrections setting. Annapolis , MD. Unpublished study.

Laine, C., Blank, S. S., & Clarke, B. R. (1985). Guilford ‘s Structure of the Intellect: An indicator of learning styles of gifted learners.

Manning, E. (1975). An adventure in learning. In M. Meeker (ed.), Collected Readings , Vol. I (pp. 206-208). El Segundo , CA : SOI Institute.

Meeker, M. (1966). Immediate memory and its correlates with school achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California .

Meeker, M. (1969). The Structure of Intellect: Its uses and interpretation. Columbus , OH : Charles Merrill.

Meeker, M. (1975). Planning curriculum using cognitive abilities from the Binet, WISC, and SOI-LA tests as the diagnostic basics. In M. Meeker (ed.), Collected Readings , Vol. I (pp. 2-3). El Segundo , CA : SOI Institute.

Meeker, M. (1983). Integrating thinking and reasoning abilities within the curriculum. In R. M. Bossone (Ed.). Proceedings: The Fourth Conference of the University Urban Schools National Task Force (pp. 34-48). New York : CUNY Center for Advanced Study in Education.

Meeker, M. (1985, April). Brain research: The necessity for separating sites, actions and functions. In Intellect and giftedness (profiles and measures). Symposium conducted at the Neurobiology of Extraordinary Intellectual Giftedness scientific conference of the Foundation for Brain Research, New York .

Meeker, M. (1991). Structure of Intellect (SOI). In A. L. Costa (ed.), Developing Minds: Vol. 2 (rev. ed., pp. 3-8). Alexandria , VA : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Meeker, M., & Meeker, R. (1982, June). Growth in intellectual abilities for 35 Mexican American boys, grades 1-6. Paper presented at the Conference for Gifted Minorities, Tucson , AZ.

Meeker, M., & Meeker, R. (1992). IPP (Integrated Practice Protocol: A treatment system for dysfunctional students. Vida , OR : SOI Systems.

Meeker, M., & Meeker, R. (1995). SOI Model School . Vida , OR : SOI Systems.

Meeker, M., Meeker, R., & Roid, G. H. (1985). Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test (SOI-LA): Manual (1985 ed.) . Los Angeles : Western Psychological Services.

Meeker, R., DeAngelis, C., Berman, B., Freeman, H., & Oda, D. (1986). A comprehensive school health initiative. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 18 (3), 86-92.

Meeker, M., & Meyers, C. E. (1971). Memory factors and success of average and special groups of ninth-grade boys. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 83, 275-308.

Meeker, R. (1998). The SOI Model School program at Travis Elementary: Results from the first two years. SOI News, 25 (2), 103-104.

Meeker, R. (1999a). Evaluating the SOI Model School program in the Lamar Consolidated School District , Rosenberg , Texas . Vida , OR . Unpublished study.

Meeker, R. (1999b). Results from the SOI/IPP program. Vida , OR . Unpublished study.

Meeker, R. J., & D. M. Weile. (1971). A new school for the cities. Education and Urban Society, 3, 129-243.

Meyers, H. H. (1998). Which SOI abilities respond to sensory-motor training. In M. Meeker (ed.), SOI Newsletter: Reports of SOI studies 1983-1998 (pp. 58-59). Vida , OR : SOI Systems.

Pattee, D. (1998). SOI and LOCAN included in integrated learning program. In M. Meeker (ed.), SOI Newsletter: Reports of SOI studies 1983-1998 (pp. 23-24). Vida , OR : SOI Systems.

Raile, F. N. (1978). Structure of Intellect factors and foreign language learning. City of Industry , CA. Unpublished study.

Roid, G. H. (1984). Factor analysis of the figural, symbolic, and semantic dimensions of the SOI-LA. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 44, 697-702.

SOI Systems (1977). SOI compendium. Vida , OR : Author.

Sisk, D. (1994) Bridging the gap between minority disadvantaged high potential children and Anglo middle class gifted children. Gifted Education International, 10, 37-43.

Sisk, D. (1998). Third Party Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Structure of Intellect Model School Program in Paris Independent School District : Year 1 Report. Beaumont , TX . Unpublished study.

Slaby, R. (1986). Predicting success in geometry. Carson City , NV . Unpublished study.

Statistical Consulting Services. (1998). The Bridges SOI Model School Program at Palo Verde School . Tempe , AZ. Unpublished study.

Teaching Research Division, Western Oregon University . (1998). Third Party Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Structure of Intellect Model Schools Pilot Program: Year 1 Report. Monmouth , OR . Unpublished study.

Tracey, R. (1983). The word processor and the writing process. Teaching English in the Two-Year College , 10, 27-33.

Tracey, R. (1989). A caveat about writing process/word processor environments. The Writing Notebook 7 (2), 8-11.

Tracey, R. (1997a). Clearing the hurdles: Achievement leaps in five first-year SOI Model Schools. Annapolis : Intellectual Development Systems. Unpublished study.

Tracey, R. (1997b). High gains for low SES students: 1996-97 TAAS performance of SOI Model School treatment group compared to control group. Annapolis : Intellectual Development Systems. Unpublished study.

Tracey, R. (1999, March). Designing a world class school. Paper presented at the 8th National Conference on Creating the Quality School , Memphis , TN.

Weiss, L.-A. (1992). Educational therapy: SOI based case studies. Laguna Hills , CA. Unpublished study.

Why do we need an IPP/SOI program? (1998). Wichita , KS : East High School.

Copyright © 1989,1994 by SOI Systems. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2010 by SOI Systems Canada. All Rights Reserved.