A total of 47 gifted and nongifted African American and Euro-American elementary students were rated by their teachers on a multidimensional instrument developed to minimize language considerations and to rely on local norms (Universal Multiple Abilities Scales [UMAS; McCallum & Bracken, 2012a]). Results from two factorial MANOVAs revealed no significant composite mean differences between African American and Euro-American students. There was a significant difference in scores based on placement, with gifted students scoring higher on the composite mean from the three general aptitude subscales and the composite mean from the three academic aptitude subscales. There were no interaction effects for Placement × Race. A discriminant function analysis created by the six subscales of the UMAS resulted in 76.70% of participants correctly classified as gifted or nongifted. Results suggest use of multidimensional scales that minimize language and relies on local norms may be useful for identifying gifted students in traditionally underrepresented groups.
BainS. K.HollimanB.McCallumR. S. (1989). Children’s self-predictions and teachers’ predictions of basic concept mastery: Effects of socioeconomic status, locus of control, and achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 7, 235-245. doi:10.1177/07342829890070030510.1177/073428298900700305
2.
Bar-OnR.ParkerJ. D. (2000). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Youth Version, Short Form. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
3.
BattlesB. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of the federal definition of gifted and talented. Kentucky Teacher Education, Summer, 19-37.
4.
BonnerF. A. (2000). African American Giftedness: Our nation’s deferred dream. Journal of Black Studies, 30, 643-663. doi:10.1177/00219347000300050110.1177/002193470003000501
5.
BrodyL. E. (2007). Review of the Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales. In GeisingerK. F.SpiesR. A.CarlsonJ. F.PlakeB. S. (Eds.), The seventeenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 343-345). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
6.
CallahanC. M. (2005). Identifying gifted students from underrepresented populations. Theory Into Practice, 44, 98-104.
7.
CTB. (1996). Terra Nova Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (5th ed.). Monterey, CA: McGraw-Hill.
8.
ElhowerisH.MutuaK.AlsehikhN.HollowayP. (2005). Effect of children’s ethnicity on teachers’ referral and recommendation decisions in gifted and talented programs. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 25-31. doi:10.1177/0741932505026001040110.1177/07419325050260010401
9.
FordD. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 4-14. doi:10.1177/00224669980320010210.1177/002246699803200102
10.
GagneG. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors? Comments on Pegnato and Birch’s (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 124-126. doi:10.1177/00169862940380030510.1177/001698629403800305
GilliamJ. E.CarpenterB. O.ChristensenJ. R. (1996). Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
13.
GrayR. G.McCallumR. S.BainS. (2009). Language-reduced screening for giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 38-64.
14.
HechtS. A.GreenfieldD. B. (2002). Explaining the predictive accuracy of teacher judgments of their students’ reading achievement: The role of gender, classroom behavior, and emergent literacy skills in a longitudinal sample of children exposed to poverty. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 789-809.
15.
HogeR. D.ColadarciT. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 59, 297-313. doi:10.3102/0034654305900329710.3102/00346543059003297
16.
HogeR. D.CudmoreL. (1986). The use of teacher-judgment measures in the identification of gifted pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 213-228.
17.
Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 3061 et seq. (1988).
18.
JarosewichT.PfeifferS. L.MorrisJ. (2002). Identifying gifted students using teacher rating scales: A review of existing instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 322-336. doi:10.1177/07342829020200040110.1177/073428290202000401
19.
JosephL. M.FordD. Y. (2006). Nondiscriminatory assessment: Considerations for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 42-51. doi:10.1177/00169862060500010510.1177/001698620605000105
McBeeM. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 103-111. doi:10.4219/jsge-2006-68610.4219/jsge-2006-686
22.
McCallumR. S. (2003). The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. In McCallumR. S. (Ed.), Handbook of nonverbal assessment (pp. 87-112). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
23.
McCallumR. S.BrackenB. A. (2012a). The Universal Multiple Abilities Scales (UMAS). San Antonio, TX: PRO-ED.
24.
McCallumR. S.BrackenB. A. (2012b). The Universal Multiple Abilities Scales Examiner’s Manual. San Antonio, TX: PRO-ED.
25.
McCallumR.S.BrackenB.A. (2012c). Universal Multiple Ability Scales (UMAS)Record Booklet. San Antonio, TX: PRO ED.
NaglieriJ. A.FordD. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155-160. doi:0.1177/0016986203047002060.1177/001698620304700206
29.
National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30.
OaklandT.RossenE. (2005). A 21st century model for identifying students for gifted and talented programs in light of national conditions: An emphasis on race and ethnicity. Gifted Child Today, 28, 56-63.
31.
OrtizS. O. (2002). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment. In ThomasA.GrimesJ. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 1321-1336). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
32.
PegnatoC. W.BirchJ. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25, 300-304.
33.
PfeifferS. I.JarosewichT. (2003). Gifted Rating Scales (GRS). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
34.
PfeifferS. I.JarosewichT. (2007). The Gifted Rating Scales–School Form: An analysis of the standardization sample based on age, gender, race, and diagnostic efficiency. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 39-50.
35.
PfeifferS. I.PetscherY.KumtepeA. (2008). The Gifted Rating Scales–School Form: A validation study based on age, gender, and race. Roeper Review, 30, 140-146. doi:10.1080/0278319080195541810.1080/02783190801955418
36.
PurcellC. (1978). Gifted and talented children’s education act of 1978, Congressional record. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
37.
RenzulliJ. S.SiegleD.ReisS. M.GavinM. K.Sytsma ReedR. E. (2009). An investigation of the reliability and factor structure of four new Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 84-108.
38.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithL. H.WhiteA. J.CallahanC. M.HartmanR. K.WestbergK. L.. . . SytsmaR. E. (2004). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students: Technical and administration manual (3rd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
39.
ReynoldsC. R.LoweP. A. (2008). The problem of bias in psychological assessment. In GutkinT. B.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (pp. 332-374). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
40.
RyserG. R.McConnellK. (2004). Scales for identifying the gifted. Austin, TX: Prufrock Press.
41.
SattlerJ. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.
42.
SiegleD.MooreM.MannR. L.WilsonH. E. (2010). Factors that influence in-service and preservice teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 337-360.
43.
SlocumbP. D.PayneR. K. (1999). Slocumb-Payne Teacher Inventory. Highlands, TX: RFT.
44.
StephensK. R.KarnesF. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66, 219-238.
45.
SuzukiL. A.ValenciaR. R. (1997). Race-ethnicity and measured intelligence: Educational implications. American Psychologist, 52, 1103-1114.
46.
TenenbaumH. R.RuckM. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253-273. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.253
WardS. A. (2005). Gifted Rating Scales. In SpiersR. A.PlakeB. S. (Eds.), The 16th mental measurements yearbook (pp. 404-407). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
50.
ZirkelP. A. (2005). State laws for gifted education: An overview of the legislation and regulations. Roeper Review, 27, 228-234.
