This study examined the reliability and validity of a Korean-translated version of the Gifted Rating Scales–School Form (GRS-S) and explored the effect of gender, rater, and grade. Data were collected from elementary schools in a metropolitan area and a midsize town in South Korea. In all, 49 elementary school teachers and 272 parents participated in the study; 257 students were independently rated on the GRS-S by teachers and parents. Results indicate high reliability for both teacher and parent ratings and substantial correlations with students' school performance. Results reveal no effect of rater or grade on any of the scales and small but significant differences in favor of females on four of the six GRS-S scales rated by teachers and five of the six scales rated by parents. The study provides preliminary support for a translated version of the GRS-S with elementary students in Korea.
Borland, J. H. (1996). Gifted education and the threat of irrelevance. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,19, 129-147.
2.
Bracken, B. A., Keith, L. K., & Walker, K. C. (1998). Assessment of preschool behavior and social-emotional functioning: A review of thirteen third-party instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,16, 153-169.
3.
Caropreso, E. J., & White, C. S. (1994). Analogical reasoning and giftedness: A comparison between identified gifted and nonidentified children. Journal of Educational Research,87, 271-278.
4.
Cho, S., & Kim, Y. (1994). Enrichment programs in regular schools in Korea, RR 94-11. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.
5.
Cho, S., & Oh, Y. (1998). Gifted education centers in Korea, CR 98-17. Seoul: Korean Educational Development Institute.
6.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Cramer, R. H. (1991). The education of gifted children in the United States: A Delphi study. Gifted Child Quarterly,35, 84-91.
9.
Davidson, K. (1986). The case against formal identification. Gifted Child Today,9, 7-11.
10.
Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education,32, 4-14.
11.
Gallagher, J. J. (2003). Issues and challenges in the education of gifted students. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis. (Eds.),Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 11-23). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12.
Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment,6, 304-312.
13.
International Test Commission. (1993). Technical standards for translating tests and establishing test score equivalent. (Available from the International Test Commission, c/o Dr. Ronald Hambleton, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003)
14.
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.
15.
Joan, F. (2004). Cultural influences on gifted gender achievement. High Ability Studies,15, 7-23.
16.
Kerr, B. (1997). Developing talents in girls and young women. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.),Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 483-497). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
17.
Kirk, R. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
18.
Li, H., Pfeiffer, S. I., Kumtepe, A. T., Petscher, Y., & Mo, G. (2006). Validation of the Gifted Rating Scales in China. Manuscript submitted for publication.
19.
Lidz, C. S., & Macrine, S. L. (2001). An alternative approach to the identification of gifted culturally and linguistically diverse learners: The contribution of dynamic assessment. School Psychology International,22, 12-32.
20.
Lipsey, M. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Margulies, A. S., & Floyd, R. G. (2004). Test review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,22, 275-282.
22.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
23.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions. Journal of Applied School Psychology,1, 31-50.
24.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly,47, 161-169.
25.
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, T. (2003). Gifted Rating Scales. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
26.
Pfeiffer, S. I., Petscher, Y., & Jarosewich, T. (in press). The Gifted Rating Scales-School Form: An analysis of the standardization sample based on age, gender, race, and diagnostic efficiency. Gifted Child Quarterly.
27.
Pfeiffer, S. I., Petscher, Y., Kumtepe, A. T., & Rosado, J. (2006). The Gifted Rating Scales–School Form: A cross-validation study. Unpublished manuscript.
28.
Richert, E. S., Alvino, J. J., & McDonnel, R. C. (1982). National report on identification: Assessment and recommendations for comprehensive identification of gifted and talented youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Educational Information Resource Center.
29.
Rimm, S. B. (1995). Why bright kids get poor grades and what you can do about it. New York: Crown.
30.
Rimm, S. B. (1997). Underachievement syndrome: A national epidemic. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 416-434). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
31.
Ross, P. O. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
32.
Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (1995). Traditional psychometric tests and proportionate representation: An intervention and program evaluation study. Psychological Assessment,7, 183-194.
33.
Siegel, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly,48, 21-29.
34.
Sparrow, S. S., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Newman, T. M. (2005). Assessment of children who are gifted with the WISC-IV. In A. Prifitera, D. H. Saklofske, & L. G. Weiss (Eds.),WISC-IV clinical use and interpretation (pp. 282-298). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
35.
Sternberg, R. J. (1996). The sound of silence: A nation responds to its gifted. Roeper Review,18, 168-173.
36.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (Eds.). (1986). Conceptions of giftedness. New York: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Ward, S. A. (2005). Gifted Rating Scales. In R. A. Spiers & B. S. Plake (Eds.),The 16th mental measurements yearbook (pp. 404-407). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
38.
Whitmore, J. R. (1980). The etiology of underachievement in highly gifted young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,3, 38-51.
39.
Wu, W., Cho, S., & Munandar, U. (2000). Programs and practices for identifying and nurturing giftedness and talent in Asia (outside the mainland of China). In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.),International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 765-777). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
40.
Zigler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.),International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 3-21). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
