User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 23 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Alvino, J., McDonnel, R., & Richert, S. (1981). National survey of identification practices in gifted education. Exceptional Children, 48, 124–132.
  • Baldwin, A. Y. (1978). The Baldwin identification matrix. In A. Y. Baldwin (Ed.), Education planning for the gifted: Overcoming cultural, geographic, and socioeconomic barriers (pp. 33–36). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
  • Bardos, A. N., & Prewett, P. N. (1991). Predictive validity of the Matrix Analogies Test-Short Form. Diagnostique, 16, 101–106.
  • Brualdi, A. C. (1996). Multiple intelligences: Gardner’s theory. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Digest: ED 410 226).
  • Callahan, C. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Adams, C. M., Moore, S. D., & Bland, L. C. (1995). Instruments used in the identification of gifted and talented students (Research Monograph 95130). Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  • Carroll, J. B. (1982). The measurement of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 29–120). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Clarizo, H. F. (1982). Intellectual assessment of Hispanic children. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 61–71.
  • Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students from special populations. Roeper Review, 17, 268–275.
  • Corman, L., & Budoff, M. (1974a). Factor structures of retarded and nonretarded children on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 407–412.
  • Corman, L., & Budoff, M. (1974b). Factor structures of Spanish-speaking and non-Spanish-speaking children on Raven’s Progressive Matrices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 977–981.
  • Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
  • Durie, R. (1997, April). An interview with Howard Gardner. Mindshift Connection: Multiple Intelligences. Tucson, AZ: Zephyr Press. Retrieved March 15, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.zephyrpress.com/gardner.htm.
  • Frasier, M. (1989). Identification of gifted Black students: Developing new perspectives. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Shiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (Vol. 2, pp. 213–225). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
  • Frasier, M. (1991). Response to Kitano: The sharing of giftedness between culturally diverse and nondiverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 20–30.
  • Frasier, M. M., García, J. H., & Passow, A. H. (1995). A review of assessment issues in gifted education and their implications for identifying gifted minority students. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  • Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Frank, E., García, J. H., & Martin, D. (1995). Educator’s perceptions of barriers to the identification of gifted children from economically disadvantaged and limited English proficient backgrounds. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
  • Gallagher, J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
  • Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 200–209.
  • Kitano, M. (1991). A multicultural education perspective on serving the culturally diverse gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 4–19.
  • Maker, C. J. (1993). Creativity, intelligence, problem solving: A definition and design for cross-cultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Gifted Education International, 9, 68–77.
  • Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes, and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 23–33.
  • Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
  • Maker, C. J., Nielson, A. B., & Rogers, J. A. (1994). Giftedness, diversity, and problem-solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27, 4–18.
  • Matthews, D. (1988). Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory: An evaluation of relevant research literature and a consideration of its application to gifted education. Roeper Review, 11, 100–104.
  • Mills, C. J., & Tissot, S. L. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from underrepresented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209–217.
  • Naglieri, J. A. (1985a). Matrix Analogies Test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  • Naglieri, J. A. (1985b). Matrix Analogies Test (Short Form). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  • Nicholson, C. (1989–90). Matrix Analogies Test. Diagnostique, 15, 115–123.
  • Plucker, J. A., Callahan, C. M., & Tomchin, E. M. (1996). Wherefore art thou, multiple intelligences? Alternative assessments for identifying talent in ethnically diverse and low income students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 81–92.
  • Prewett, P. (1995). A comparison of two screening tests (the Matrix Analogies Test-Short Form and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test) with the WISC-III. Psychological Assessment, 7, 69–72.
  • Prewett, P. N., & Farhney, M. R. (1994). The concurrent validity of the Matrix Analogies Test-Short Form with the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition and the KTEA-BF (Academic Achievement). Psychology in the Schools, 31, 20–25.
  • Reid, C., Udall, A., Romanoff, B., & Algozzine, B. (1999). Comparison of traditional and problem-solving assessment criteria. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 252–264.
  • Renzulli, J. (1979). What makes giftedness? Brief #6. Los Angeles: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented.
  • Rhodes, L. (1992). Focusing attention on the individual in identification of gifted Black students. Roeper Review, 14, 108–110.
  • Ross, P. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1981). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86–93.
  • Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Human intelligences: The model is the message. Science, 230, 1111–1118.
  • Udall, A., & Passe, M. (1993). Gardner-based/performance-based assessment notebook. Charlotte, NC: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.
  • Westberg, K. L., & Archambault, F. X., Jr. (1997). A multisite case study of successful classroom practices for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 42–51.
  • Wiedl, K. H., & Carlson, J. J. (1976). The factorial structure of Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 408–413.
  • Zappia, I. (1989). Identification of gifted Hispanic students: A multidimensional view. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Shiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (Vol. 2, pp. 19–26). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Fields marked with an asterisk * are mandatory.
 

Your Name:*
 

Your Email:*
 

Friend's Name:*
 

Friend's Email:*
 

Message:
 

 
Send CC to self
 

 
 

Bookmark
X
  • Volume 23
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Summer 2000



An Evaluation of Alternative Screening Procedures

Carol Reid, Brenda Romanoff, Bob Algozzine, & Ann Udall

Disproportional minority membership in special programs has become a major issue in gifted education programs. Identifying students who are gifted has traditionally been grounded in criteria emphasizing unitary measures of intellectual ability. An alternative perspective with promise for addressing concerns related to disproportion and bias in placement practices has emerged from the theory of multiple intelligences (MI; Gardner, 1983, 1993). While perspectives and opinions regarding multiple intelligences are plentiful, research on the effectiveness of assessment and instructional practices grounded in MI theory has been sparse. This research was designed to shed light on the problem-solving assessment (PSA) procedure, an application of MI theory focused on identification of students for gifted education programs. Scores and decisions grounded in PSA and more traditional criteria were described, compared, and analyzed. As in previous research, positive correlations were evident among scores for different types of intelligences and applications of another identification criterion. More important, different groups of students were identified when using each approach; a more diverse population was identified with the problem-solving-assessment procedure.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
Your cart is empty.