Identifying students who are gifted has been grounded traditionally in criteria emphasizing unitary measures of intellectual ability, which has caused great concern for educators interested in identifying academic talent and potential in culturally and linguistically diverse students. Recently, multiple intelligences (MI) theory has been examined as an alternative perspective with promise for addressing concerns evident in groups identified using traditional methods. To date, research on the effectiveness of assessment practices grounded in MI theory has been sparse. The purpose of this research was to describe the performance of elementary school children on an alternative screening measure designed for use in identifying students who are gifted. The Problem Solving Assessment procedure represented an application of MI theory, and decisions made using it were compared to those that would be made using a more traditional, unitary approach to identification. Positive relations were evident among scores for different types of intelligences and between them and the traditional measure. More importantly, different groups of students were identified using each approach, with a more diverse population generated with the Problem Solving Assessment procedure. The results are discussed with regard to ongoing practices and future directions in gifted education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alvino, J., McDonnel, R., & Richert, S. (1981). National survey of identification practices in gifted education. Exceptional Children, 48, 124-132.
2.
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.
3.
Bardos, A. N., & Prewett, P. N. (1991). Predictive validity of the Matrix Analogies Test—Short Form. Diagnostique, 16, 101-106.
4.
Barkan, J. H., & Bernal, E. M. (1991). Gifted education for bilingual and limited English proficient students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 144-147.
5.
Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171.
6.
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.
7.
Cassidy, J., & Hossler, A. (1992,January/February). State and federal definitions of the gifted: An update. Gifted Child Today, 15, 46-53.
8.
Clarizo, H. F. (1982). Intellectual assessment of Hispanic children. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 61-71.
9.
Coleman, M. R., & Gallagher, J. J. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students from special populations. Roeper Review, 17, 268-275.
10.
Corman, L., & Budoff, M. (1974a). Factor structures of retarded and nonretarded children on Raven's Progressive Matrices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 407-412.
11.
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.
12.
Court,J. H., & Raven,J. (1983). A manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Tests. New York: H. K. Lewis.
13.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.
14.
Frasier, M. (1989). Identification of gifted Black students: Developing new perspectives. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (Vol. 2, pp. 213-225). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
15.
Frasier, M. (1991). Response to Kitano: The sharing of giftedness between culturally diverse and non-diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 20-30.
16.
Gallagher,J. J. (1985). Teaching the gifted child (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
17.
Gallagher, J., Weiss, P., Oglesby, K., & Thomas, T. (1983). Report of education of the gifted: Surveys and evidence of program effectiveness. Los Angeles: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented.
18.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
19.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
20.
Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 200-209.
21.
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihaly, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley Interscience.
22.
Kitano, M. (1991). A multicultural education perspective on serving the culturally diverse gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 15, 4-19.
23.
Kornhaber, M., & Krechevsky, M. (1995). Expanding definitions of learning and teaching: Notes from the MI underground. In P. W. Cookson, Jr., & B. Scheider (Eds.), Transforming schools (pp. 181-208). New York: Garland Publishing.
24.
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.
25.
Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes, and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 23-33.
26.
Maker, C. J., & Nielson, A. B. (1996). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
27.
Maker, C. J., Nielson, A. B., & Rogers, J. A. (1994). Giftedness, diversity, and problem solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27, 4-18.
28.
Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
29.
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.
30.
Mills, C. J., & Tissot, S. L. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from under-represented populations: Is using the Raven's Progressive Matrices a good idea?Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209-217.
31.
Montgomery, D. (1989). Identification of gifted among American Indian people. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues in gifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (Vol. 2, pp. 79-90). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
32.
Naglieri, J. A. (1985). Matrix analogies test (Shortform). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
33.
Nicholson, C. (1989-90). Matrix Analogies Test (MAT). Diagnostique, 15, 115-123.
34.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
35.
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.
36.
Prewett, P. (1995). A comparison of two screening tests (the Matrix Analogies Test—Short Form and the Kaufnan Brief Intelligence Test) with the WISC-III. Psychological Assessment, 7, 69-72.
37.
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.
38.
Renzulli, J. (1979). What makes gfitedness? Brief #6. Los Angeles: National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented.
39.
Rhodes, L. (1992). Focusing attention on the individual in identification of gifted Black students. Roeper Review, 14, 108-110.
40.
Ross, P. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
41.
Salvia,J. A., & Ysseldyke,J. E. (1998). Assessment in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
42.
Schiever, S. W., & Maker, C. J. (1991). Enrichment and acceleration: An overview and new directions. In G. Davis & N. Colangelo (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 99-110). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
43.
Sternberg, R. J. (1981). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86-93.
44.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985a). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985b). Human intelligences: The model is the message. Science, 230, 1111-1118.
46.
Torrance, E. P. (1973). Non-test indicators of creative talent among disadvantaged children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 17, 3-9.
47.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. L. (1992). Critical issues in special education (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
48.
Wiedl, K. H., & Carlson, J. J. (1976). The factorial structure of Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 408-413.
49.
Zappia, I. (1989). Identification of gifted Hispanic students: A multidimensional view. In C. J. Maker & S. W. Schiever (Eds.), Critical issues ingifted education: Defensible programs for cultural and ethnic minorities (Vol. 2, pp. 19-26). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
