Using data from the Illinois Talent Search Program, this study examines the relationships between scores on several commonly used standardized achievement tests and subsequent performance on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. In addition, the dual criteria testing process is analyzed for possible sex and racial effects. Results suggest that the achievement tests are not equivalent. Guidelines are offered for setting appropriate cutoff scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alvino, J., & Wieler, J. (1979). How standardized testing fails to identify the gifted and what teachers can do about it. Phi Delta Kappan,61(2), 106.
2.
Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
3.
Ebmeier, H., & Schmulbach, S. (1988). Study of the efficacy of using both a standardized test and the SAT as screening devices for entrance into gifted programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Orlando.
4.
Fearn, L., & Owen, J.J. (1984). Identification of gifted students using non-traditional measures. Roeper Review, 7(2), 80-83.
5.
Feldhusen, J., & Hoover, S. (1986). A conception of giftedness: Intelligence, self concept, and motivation. Roeper Review, 8(3), 140-142.
6.
Friedman, G.G., Jenkins-Friedman, R., & VanDyke, M. (1984). Identifying the leadership gifted: Self, peer or teacher nominations?Roeper Review, 7(2), 91-94.
7.
Gallagher, J. (1986). Equity vs excellence: An educational drama. Roeper Review, 8(4), 233-235.
8.
Gallagher, J., Weiss, P., Oglesby, K., & Thomas, T. (1983). The status of gifted/talented education: United States survey of needs, practices, and policies. Los Angeles, CA: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented.
9.
Harty, H., Adkins, D.M., & Hungate, E.W. (1984). Exploring self-concept and locus of control of students in two recognized approaches to elementary school gifted education . Roeper Review7(2), 88-91.
10.
Jenkins-Friedman, R. (1982). Myth: Cosmetic use of multiple selection criteria . Gifted Child Quarterly, 26(1), 24-26.
11.
Kaufman, A.S. (1984). K-ABC and giftedness. Roeper Review , 7(2), 83-88. Kissane, B.V. (1986). Selection of mathematically talented students. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 17(3), 221-241.
12.
Renzulli, J. (1978, November). What makes giftedness: Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan,60, 180-184, 261.
13.
Richert, E.S., Alvino, J., & McDonnel, R. (1982). National Report on Identification: Assessment and recommendations for comprehensive identification of gifted and talented youth. Educational InformationResource Center, U.S. Department of Education.
14.
Sawyer, R.N. (1984). On thinking straight about finding straight thinkers . Durham, NC: Duke University Press .
15.
Stanley, J.C., Keating, D.P., & Fox, L.H. (1974). Mathematical talent: Discouery, description, and development. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
Sternberg, R. (1985). Beyond I.Q. A triarchic theory of intelligence . New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Sternberg, R., & Davidson, J. (Eds.). (1986). Conceptions of giftedness . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Tyerman, M.J. (1986). Gifted children and their identification: Learning ability not intelligence. Gifted Education International, 4(2), 81-84.
19.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1986). The use of aptitude tests for identifying the gifted: The talent search concept. Roeper Review, 8(3), 185-189.
