User Name:

Password:
Welcome Guest
Journals Home > Journal For The Education Of The Gifted > Volume 31 |  Issue 4 > Article Abstract
 

Abstract

Back to TOC
Reference
X

  • Benbow, C., & Lubinski, D. (1995). Optimal development of talent: Respond educationally to individual differences in personality. Educational Forum, 59, 381–392.
  • Benbow, C. P., & Stanley, J. C. (1996). Inequity in equity: How “equity” can lead to inequity for high-potential students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 249–292.
  • Bernal, E. M. (2002). Three ways to achieve a more equitable representation of culturally and linguistically different students in GT programs. Roeper Review, 24, 82–88.
  • Boehm, A. E., Kaplan, C., & Reddy, D. (1980). How important are basic concepts to instruction: Validation of the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University.
  • Bracken, B. A. (1986). Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of five commonly used American tests of intelligence. School Psychology International, 7, 1–10.
  • Bracken, B. A. (1998). Bracken Basic Concept Scale–Revised. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessments.
  • Bracken, B. A. (2008). Nontraditional strategies for identifying nontraditional gifted and talented students. In J. VanTassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessment with gifted and talented learners (pp. 17–40). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • Bracken, B. A., & Brown, E. F. (2006). Behavioral identification and assessment of gifted and talented students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 112–122.
  • Bracken, B. A., & Crawford, E. (2006, June). Project Clarion: A concept-based science curriculum. Paper presented at the National Association for the Education of Young People 15th National Institute for Early Childhood Professional Development, San Antonio, TX.
  • Bracken, B. A., & Keith, L. K. (2004). Professional manual for the Clinical Assessment of Behavior. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
  • Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (1998). Examiner’s manual for the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
  • Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (2007). UNIT Group Ability Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Test in development.
  • Bracken, B. A., VanTassel-Baska, J., Brown, E. F., & Feng, A. (2007). Project Athena: A tale of two studies. In J. VanTassel-Baska & T. Stambaugh (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 63–67). Washington, DC: National Association of Gifted Children.
  • Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students from special populations. Roeper Review, 17, 268–275.
  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Becoming adult: How teenagers prepare for the world of work. New York: Basic Books.
  • Cummings, J. A., & Nelson, B. R. (1980). Basic concepts in oral directions of group achievement tests. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 159–261.
  • Feuerstein, R. (1986). Learning potential assessment. Special Services on the Schools, 2, 85–106.
  • Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Kiminer, T., & Rader, D. E. (1995). Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of new and recently revised American intelligence tests for preschool children. School Psychology International, 16, 345–364.
  • Ford, D. Y. (1996). Multicultural gifted education: A wake up call to the profession. Roeper Review, 19, 72–78.
  • Ford, D., & Harmon, D. (2001). Providing access to gifted education for culturally diverse students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 3, 141–143.
  • Frasier, M. M. (1987). The identification of gifted Black students: Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 155–180.
  • Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. London: Paladin.
  • Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books.
  • Jarosewich, T., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Morris, J. (2002). Identifying gifted students using teacher rating scales: A review of existing instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 322–336.
  • Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
  • Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66, 219–238.
  • Kaufman, A. S. (1978). The importance of basic concepts in the individual assessment of preschool children. Journal of School Psychology, 16, 208–211.
  • Kirschenbaum, R. (1998). Dynamic assessment and its use with underserved gifted and talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 140–147.
  • Lewis, J. D. (2001). Language isn’t needed: Nonverbal assessments and gifted learners. East Lansing, Mi: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453026).
  • Lohman, D. F. (2006). Exploring perceptions and awareness of high-ability. Beliefs about differences between ability and accomplishment: From folk theories to cognitive science. Roeper Review, 29, 32–40.
  • McCallum, R. S., & Bracken, B. A. (2007). Gifted Screening Scales. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Instrument in development.
  • Mills, C., & Tissot, S. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from under-represented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209–217.
  • Naglieri, J. A. (1991). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessments.
  • Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155–160.
  • Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. (2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 29–36.
  • Naglieri, J. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2001). Understanding intelligence, giftedness and creativity using the PASS theory. Roeper Review, 23, 151–156.
  • Orfield, G., Kahlenberg, R., Gordon, E., Genesee, F., Slocumb, P., & Payne, R. (2000). The new diversity. Principal, 79, 6–32.
  • Passow, A. H., & Frasier, M. M. (1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18, 198–202.
  • Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, T. (2003). Gifted Rating Scales. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
  • Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., & Hartman, R. K. (1976). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
  • Rohrer, J. C. (1995). Primary teacher conceptions of giftedness: Image, evidence, and nonevidence. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 269–283.
  • Torrance, E. P. (1982). Future problem solving and quality circles in schools. NJEA Review, 56(1), 20–23.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J., & Feng, A. (2004). Designing and utilizing evaluation for gifted program improvement. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
  • VanTassel-Baska, J., Patton, J. M., & Prillaman, D. (1991). Gifted youth at risk: A report of a national study. Arlington, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
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 31
  •  Issue 4
  • Publication Date: Summer 2008
  • Page Number(s): 403-426
  • DOI: 10.4219/jeg-2008-794



Early Identification of High-Ability Students: Clinical Assessment of Behavior

Bruce A. Bracken and Elissa F. Brown

This study investigated the ability of teachers to accurately rate the cognitive and academic functioning of 1,375 students in kindergarten through the third grade on the Clinical Assessment of Behavior (CAB), as compared to two objective cognitive ability tests. CAB teacher ratings were compared for high-ability students who were currently functioning with ability test scores ≥ 120; comparisons also were made across the students’ full ability range and according to their race/ethnicity. The Bracken Basic Concept Scale–Revised and the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test were contrasted with the CAB in terms of the proportions of culturally diverse students identified as high ability. A discernable CAB scale and cluster profile was evident for high-ability students, showing significantly better adjustment among the high-ability students as compared to the typical student from the general population. High-ability students evidenced adaptive strengths on the CAB Social Skills and Competence scales and on the Executive Function and Gifted and Talented clusters.


ShoppingCart Summary

Shopping
You have 10 item(s) in your cart.
Last item you added is
Using the Literary Masters to Inspire Written Expression in Gifted Students.

View Cart