Screening for Giftedness Using a Reading Curriculum Based Measure

Abstract

The psychometric integrity of a curriculum-based measure to screen for academic giftedness (Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness: Reading [MIR:R]) was evaluated by examining its ceiling, item gradient, and predictive capacity using 460 fourth grade students. Eighty fourth graders (17.39%) scored one standard deviation above the MIR:R mean. Ten fourth graders (2.17%) scored two or more standard deviations above the mean, indicating an adequate ceiling. Item gradients were sufficient, that is, one raw score change produced less than one-third of a standard deviation change in standard deviation units. The MIR:R accurately screened students who performed in the “advanced” range on an end-of-the-year measure (i.e., Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program [TCAP]). Results of a chi-square indicated that 78.3% were identified as non-gifted by both the TCAP and MIR:R and 5.9% were identified as gifted.

Keywords

gifted screening CBMs ceiling effect RtI

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ardoin

S. P.

Witt

J. C.

Suldo

S. M.

Connell

J. E.

Koenig

J. L.

Resetar

J. L.

Slider

N. J.

Williams

K. L.

(2004). Examining the incremental benefits of administering a maze and three versus one curriculum-based measurement reading probes when conducting universal screening. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086244

Bell

S. M.

Hilton-Prillhart

A. N.

Hopkins

M. B.

McCallum

R. S.

(2012). Monitoring Instructional responsiveness: Reading (MIR:R). Unpublished test. University of Tennessee

Bell

S. M.

Taylor

E. P.

McCallum

R. S.

Coles

J. T.

Hays

(2015). Comparing prospective twice-exceptional students with high-performing peers on high-stakes tests of achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted 38(3), 294–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215592500

Bisland

(2004). Developing leadership skills in young gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 27(1), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621750402700108

Bracken

B. A.

(1987). Limitations of preschool instruments and standards for minimal levels of technical adequacy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5(4), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428298700500402

Bradley-Johnson

Durmusoglu

(2005). Evaluation of floors and item gradients for reading and math tests for young children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(3), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300305

Brody

Stanley

(2005). Conceptions of giftedness. Cambridge University Press

Brown

E. F.

(2011). Is response to intervention and gifted assessment compatible? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911428200

Card

Giuliano

(2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48), 13678–13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113

10.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

11.

Council for Exceptional Children . (2008). CEC’s position on response to intervention: The unique role of special education and special educators

12.

Crepeau-Hobson

Bianco

(2011). Identification of gifted students with learning disabilities in a response-to-intervention era. Psychology in the Schools, 48(2), 102-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20528

13.

Hertberg-Davis

Callahan

C. M.

(2008). A narrow escape. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(3), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208319705

14.

Hodges

Tay

Maeda

Gentry

(2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107

15.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Ammendments (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §

1400 (2004)

16.

Kieffer

K. M.

Reese

R. J.

Vacha-Haase

(2010). Reliability generalization (RG) methods in the context of giftedness research. In Thompson

Subotnik

R. F.

(Eds.), Methodologies for conducting research on giftedness (p. 89–111). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12079-005

17.

Lee

S.-Y.

Matthews

M. S.

Olszewski-Kubilius

(2008). A national picture of talent search and talent search educational programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207311152

18.

Stevens

(2015). Comparisons and analyses of gifted students’ characteristics and learning methods. Gifted Education International. 33(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429414565160

19.

Manning

(2006). Recognizing gifted students: A practical guide for teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 42(2), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2006.10516435

20.

Mather

Hammill

D. D.

Allen

E. A.

Roberts

(2014). Test of silent word reading fluency.(2nd Ed.). Pro-Ed.

21.

McCallum

R. S.

Bell

S. M.

Coles

J. T.

Miller

K. C.

Hopkins

M. B.

Hilton-Prillhart

(2013). A model for screening twice-exceptional students (gifted with learning disabilities) within a response to intervention paradigm. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213500070

22.

McCallum

R. S.

Bracken

B. A.

(2018). Universal talented and gifted screener (UTAGS).

Prufrock Press

23.

McClain

M.-C.

Pfeiffer

(2011). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(1), 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643757

24.

McGowan

M. R.

Runge

T. J.

Pedersen

J. A.

(2016). Using curriculum-based measures for identifying gifted learners. Roeper Review, 38(2), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1150376

25.

Mingo

M. A.

Bell

S. M.

McCallum

R. S.

Walpitage

D. L.

(2020). Relative efficacy of teacher rankings and curriculum-based measures as predictors of performance on high-stakes tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919831103

26.

Mollenkopf

D. L.

Matyo-Cepero

Lewis

J. D.

Irwin

B. A.

Joy

(2021). Testing, identifying, serving gifted children with and without disabilities: A multi-state parental perspective. Gifted Child Today, 44(2), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520986589

27.

Morelock

M. J.

(1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent: Imposing order on chaos. Roeper Review 19(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553774

28.

National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) . (2009). Response to intervention for gifted children. https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/RtI.pdf

29.

National Association for Gifted Children . (2020). State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data 2018-2019 (report by the Council of State Directors of programs for the gifted & the national association for gifted children). Author. https://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Revised%20-%20NAGC_CSDPG_2018-2019%20State%20of%20the%20States%20in%20Gifted%20Education%20Report-Final.pdf

30.

Park

J. J.

Park

Choe

N. H.

Schallert

D. L.

(2019). When groups experience conflict: Intersection among undergraduates’ individual and group motivational goals, project commitment, and emotions. Educational Psychology, 39(9), 1156–1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1618444

31.

Plucker

J. A.

Barber

(2021). Talent development plans help guide consistent, equitable service delivery. Gifted Child Today, 44(1), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520963673

32.

ProPublica . (2017). Roane county school district. https://projects.propublica.org/miseducation/district/4703590

33.

Robertson

Pfeiffer

(2016). Development of a procedural guide to implement response to intervention with high-ability learners. Roeper Review, 38(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1112863

34.

Stephens

K. R.

Karnes

F. A.

(2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600206

35.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2003). Giftedness according to the theory of successful intelligence. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 55–60). Allyn & Bacon

36.

Subotnik

Thompson

, (eds.) (2010). Methodologies for conducting research on giftedness. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12079-000

37.

Sulak

T. N.

(2013). Using CBM to identify advanced learners in the general education classroom. Gifted Child Today, 37(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217513509620

38.

Tennessee Department of Education . (n.d.-b.). Overview of testing in Tennessee. https://www.tn.gov/education/assessment/testing-overview.html

39.

Tennessee Department of Education . (2017a). Intellectually gifted. https://www.tn.gov/education/student-support/special-education/intellectually-gifted.html

40.

Tennessee Department of Education . (2017b). Special education evaluation & eligibility. https://www.tn.gov/content/tn/education/student-support/special-education/special-education-evaluation-eligibility.html

41.

Tennessee Department of Education . (2020). Response to instruction and intervention framework. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/documents/rti2_manual_revisedNov2020%20(1).pdf

42.

Wells

(2020). Achieving equity in gifted programming: Dismantling barriers and tapping potential. Prufrock Press

43.

Yaluma

C. B.

Tyner

(2018). Is there a gifted gap? Gifted education in high poverty schools. Fordham Institute