A persistent problem in education is underrepresentation of certain cultural and linguistic groups such as American Indian, African American, and Hispanic, in special programs for exceptionally talented students, especially in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The spatial analytical task, a performance-based assessment with demonstrated reliability and validity as an instrument to identify exceptionally talented students, was included with new instruments created in the Cultivating Diverse Talent in STEM (CDTIS) project. A continuum of problems, including closed, semi-open, and open-ended, was an important component of the measures, enabling the assessment of creative problem solving as well as assessment of skills such as seeing how things fit together visually and in space; through mental images, on paper, and in physical objects or forms. The spatial analytical assessment was implemented as part of a battery of instruments to identify students to participate in a special internship program. Ratings of students on the spatial analytical assessment who were identified for the internship program using the new assessments were higher than ratings for students identified using conventional methods, which demonstrates that the assessment will be a useful tool for selecting students from diverse cultural groups. The assessment has multiple purposes in addition to its use as an identification tool: evaluation of special programs, planning differentiated instruction, and as a pre- and post-measure of student gains. The test–retest reliability, and construct, concurrent, and predictive validity for secondary students need continued investigation in future studies.
AlfaizF. S.PeaseR.MakerC. J. (2020). Culturally responsive assessment of physical science skills and abilities: Development, field testing, implementation, and results. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 298–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20920572
2.
AmabileT. M. (1996). Creativity in context. West-view.
3.
AmabileT. M. (2013). Componential theory of creativity. In KesslerE. H. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 134–139). Sage.
4.
BaharA. K.MakerC. J. (2020). Culturally responsive assessments of mathematical skills and abilities: Development, field testing, and implementation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20906130
5.
BrownL. (2003). Test of nonverbal intelligence. In McCallumR. S. (Ed.), Handbook of nonverbal assessment (pp. 191–221). Springer.
6.
CattellR. B. (1957). Appendix, fluid and crystallized intelligence. In CattellR. B. (Ed.), Personality and motivation structure and measurement (pp. 871–880). Harcourt Brace & World.
7.
ErdimezO.MakerC. J. (2015). The predictive validity of the DISCOVER performance-based assessment to identify the academic achievement of Diné students [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, University of Arizona.
8.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic Books.
9.
GardnerH. (1992). Assessment in context: The alternative to standardized testing. In GiffordB.O’ConnorM. (Eds.), Changing assessment: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 77–120). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
10.
GardnerH. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books.
GetzelsJ.CsikszentmihalyiM. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. Wiley.
13.
GriffithsS. E. (1996). The inter-observer reliability of the DISCOVER problem-solving assessment [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, The University of Arizona.
14.
JenksG. F. (1967). The data model concept in statistical mapping. International Yearbook of Cartography, 7, 186–190.
15.
KassymovA. (2000). Researchers and implementers: Comparison of inter-rater reliability [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, The University of Arizona.
16.
LohmanD. (1996). Spatial ability and G. In DennisI.TapsfieldP. (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and measurement (pp. 97–116). Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
MakerC. J. (1993). Creativity, intelligence, and problem-solving: A definition and design for crosscultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Gifted Education International, 9(2), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142949300900202.
18.
MakerC. J. (1994). Authentic assessment of problem solving and giftedness in secondary school students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 2(1), 19–29.
19.
MakerC. J. (1997). DISCOVER problem-solving assessment. Quest: The Journal of the Division of Research and Evaluation, National Association for Gifted Children, 8(1), 3, 5, 7, 9.
20.
MakerC. J. (2005). Senior scholars series monograph: The DISCOVER project: Improving assessment and curriculum for diverse gifted learners. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
21.
MakerC. J. (2020). Identifying exceptional talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Increasing diversity and assessing creative problem-solving. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 161–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20911643
22.
MakerC. J.AlhusainiA. A.PeaseR.ZimmermanR.AlamiriF. Y. (2015). Developing creativity, talents, and interests across the lifespan: Centers for creativity and innovation. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 5(2), 83–109.
23.
MakerC. J.SchieverS. W. (2010). Curriculum development and teaching strategies for gifted learners (3rd ed.). Pro-Ed.
24.
MakerC. J.ZimmermanR. H. (2020). Concept maps as assessments of expertise: Understanding of the complexity and interrelationships of concepts in science. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 254–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20921770
25.
MuammarO.MakerC. J.KuangC. C. (2015). Spatial intelligence: The internal structure of the DISCOVER spatial analytical assessment [Manuscript in preparation]. Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, The University of Arizona.
26.
NaglieriJ. A. (2003). Naglieri nonverbal ability tests: NNAT and MAT-EF. In McCallumR. S. (Ed.), Handbook of nonverbal assessment (pp. 175–189). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0153-4_9
27.
National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. National Science Foundation.
28.
PeaseR.VukeM.MakerC. J.MuammarA. A. (2020). A practical guide for implementing the STEM assessment results in classrooms: Using strength-based reports and real engagement in active problem solving. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 367–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20911643
29.
RavenJ. C.CourtJ. H.RavenJ. (1998). Manual for the standard progressive matrices. H. K. Lewis.
30.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examinig a definiton. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184, 261.
31.
RogersJ. A. (1998). Refocusing the lens: Using observation to assess and identify gifted learners. Gifted Education International, 12, 129–144.
32.
SakU.MakerC. J. (2003). The long-term predictive validity of a performance-based assessment used to identify gifted CLD Students [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 15th Biennial World Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Students. Adelaide, SA, Australia.
33.
SakU.MakerC. J. (2006). Developmental variation in children’s creative mathematical thinking as a function of schooling, age, and knowledge. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 279–291.
34.
SarouphimK. M. (2000). Internal structure of DISCOVER: A performance-based assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23(3), 314–327.
35.
SarouphimK. M. (2001). DISCOVER: Concurrent validity, gender differences, and identification of minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45(2), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620104500206.
36.
SarouphimK. M. (2002). DISCOVER in high school: Identifying gifted Hispanic and Native American students. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2002-385.
37.
SarouphimK. M.MakerC. J. (2010). Ethnic and gender differences in identifying gifted students: A multi-cultural analysis. International Education, 39(2), 42–56.
38.
StanleyJ. C. (1996). In the beginning: The study of mathematically precocious youth. In BenbowC. P.LubinskiD. (Eds.), Intellectual talent (pp. 225–235). Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
SternbergR. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press.
40.
SternbergR. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. Plume.
41.
SternbergR. J. (1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 359–375.
42.
SternbergR. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 189–202.
43.
SuperD. E.BachrachP. B. (1957). Scientific careers and vocational development theory. Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
44.
TanS.MakerC. J. (2015). The predictive validity of the Raven Progressive Matrices for identifying academic achievement of the Diné children [Unpublished Manuscript]. Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, The University of Arizona.
45.
ThurstoneL. (1935). University of Chicago science series: The vectors of mind; multiple-factor analysis for the isolation of primary traits. The University of Chicago Press.
46.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835.
47.
WebbR. M.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2007). Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 397–420.
48.
WiseL. L.McLaughlinD. H.SteelL. (1979). The project TALENT data bank. American Institutes for Research.
49.
WuI.PeaseR.MakerC. J. (2019). Students’ perceptions of a special program for developing exceptional talent in STEM. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(4), 474–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19864690
50.
ZimmermanR. H.MakerC. J.AlfaizF. (2020). Culturally responsive assessment of life science skills and abilities: Development, field testing, implementation, and results. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20923981
