In the context of increasing interest and support for a developmental conception of giftedness, there is perhaps an ever-greater need for off-level testing for students with high potential. Off-level testing is no longer merely a single-use tool that helps administrators identify students for gifted programs, but provides essential information about where students’ various strengths are currently situated on the developmental trajectory, which helps students, parents, teachers, and administrators to develop dynamic and individualized “pathways” toward self-discovery, opportunities for challenge and growth, and ultimately productive and fulfilling life-work. It further provides a means for assessment of progress in a way that takes into account a student’s unique abilities and needs, as well as the way in which student abilities naturally differentiate as that student develops and matures.
AssoulineS. G.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2012). The talent search model of gifted identification. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 45-59.
2.
BarnettL. B.DurdenW. G. (1993). Education patterns of academically talented youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 161-168.
3.
BartkovichK. G.MezynskiK. (1981). Fast-paced precalculus mathematics for talented junior-high students: Two recent SMPY programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 73-80.
4.
BenbowC. P. (1992a). Academic achievement in mathematics and science of students between ages 13 and 23: Are there differences among students in the top one percent of mathematical ability?Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 51-61.
5.
BenbowC. P. (1992b). Mathematical talent: Its nature and consequences. In ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.AmbrosonD. L. (Eds.), Talent development: Proceedings from the 1991 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development (pp. 95-123). New York, NY: Trillium.
6.
BenbowC. P.ArjmandO. (1990). Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 430-441.
7.
BrodyL. E. (1998). The talent searches: A catalyst for change in higher education. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 124-133.
8.
BrodyL. E.MillsC. J. (2005). Talent search research: What have we learned?High Ability Studies, 16, 97-111.
9.
BurtonN. W. (1988). Two survey: Survey II: Test-taking history for 1980-81 young SAT-takers. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
10.
EbmeierH.SchmulbachS. (1989). An examination of the selection practices used in the talent search program. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 134-141.
11.
FeldmanD. H. (1982). A developmental framework for research with gifted children. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 17, 31-45.
12.
GrossM. U. M. (2004). Exceptionally gifted children (2nd ed.). London, England: RoutledgeFalmer.
13.
JarosewichT.StockingV. B. (2003). Talent search: Student and parent perceptions of out-of-level testing. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 137-150.
14.
LeeS. Y.MatthewsM. S.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2008). A national picture of talent search and talent search educational programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 55-69.
15.
LubinskiD.WebbR. M.MorelockM. J.BenbowC. P. (2001). Top 1 in 20,000: A 10 year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 718-729.
16.
Lupkowski-ShoplikA.SwiatekM. A. (1999). Elementary student talent searches: Establishing appropriate guidelines for qualifying test scores. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 265-272.
17.
MinorL. L.BenbowC. P. (1996). Construct validity of the SAT-M: A comparative study of high school students and gifted seventh graders. In BenbowC. P.LubinskiD. (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 347-361). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
18.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (1998). Research evidence regarding the validity and effects of talent search educational programs. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 134-138.
Olzewski-KubiliusP.KuliekeM. J. (2008). Using off-level testing and assessment for gifted and talented students. In Tassel-BaskaJ. Van (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 89-106). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
21.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.KuliekeM. J.WillisG. B.KrasneyN. (1989). An analysis of the validity of the SAT entrance scores for accelerated classes. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 37-54.
22.
Olsezewski-KubiliusP.LeeS. Y. (2008). Specialized programs serving the gifted. In KarnesF. A.StephensK. R. (Eds.), Achieving excellence: Educating the gifted and talented (pp. 192-208). Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.
23.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.ThomsonD. (in press). Talent search. In PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
24.
RobertsonK. F.SmeetsS.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2010). Beyond the threshold hypothesis even among the gifted and top math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational interests, and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, performance, and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 346-351.
25.
RogersK. B. (2007). Lessons learned about educating the gifted and talented: A synthesis of the research on educational practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 382-396.
26.
RosenR. (2012, Fall). More than a number. Talent.
27.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Association for Psychological Science, 12, 3-54.
28.
TreffingerD. (2002). Programming for talent development: What’s unique about the four levels of service?Creative Learning Today, 11(4), 1-3.
29.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (1998). Key issues and problems in secondary programming. In VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Ed.), Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed., pp. 241-259). Denver, CO: Love.
30.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484-492.
31.
WarneR. T. (2012). History and development of above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 34, 183-193.
32.
WebbR. M.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 785-794.
33.
WinnerE. (1996). Gifted children: Myths and realities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
