A Study of Identification and Achievement Profiles of Performance Task-Identified Gifted Students over 6 Years

Abstract

This study examined the trend of identification and achievement patterns of performance task-identified students over a span of 6 years (2000–2005), in comparison to profiles of students who were identified exclusively through traditional ability and achievement tests. The study findings suggested that the performance-based protocols were consistent across time in locating a higher percentage of low-income and minority students, as well as female students for gifted programs; a higher percentage of students with uneven verbal-nonverbal strengths were performance task-identified students also. Performance task-identified students scored significantly lower than traditionally identified students on both the English and math portions of the state assessment test for multiple years; however, the performance differences on state assessments were small, rendering small effect sizes.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barlow

I. H.

Farr

R. C.

Hogan

T. P.

(1992). Metropolitan Achievement Test 7. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation

Borland

J. H.

Wright

(1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164–171

Bracken

B. A.

McCallum

R. S.

(1998). UNIT Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside

Callahan

C. M.

Tomlinson

C. A.

Moon

T. R.

Tomchin

E. M.

Plucker

J. A.

(1995). Project START: Using a multiple intelligences model in identifying and promoting talent in high-risk students (Research Monograph 95136). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut

Campbell

F. A.

Ramey

C. T.

(1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Development, 65, 684–698

Coleman

M. R.

(2003). The identification of students who are gifted. Arlington, VA: Eric Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED480431)

CTB McGraw-Hill. (1992). Test of Cognitive Skills, 2nd Edition. Monterey, CA: Author

CTB McGraw-Hill. (1999). TerraNova CAT 2nd Edition. Monterey, CA: Author

Feuerstein

(1986). Learning to learn: Mediated learning experiences and instrumental enrichment. Special Services in the Schools, 3, 49–82

10.

Ford

D. Y.

(1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black students: Promising pro grams and practices. New York: Teachers College Press

11.

Ford

D. Y.

Trotman

M. F.

(2000). The Office for Civil Rights and non-discriminatory testing, policies, and procedures: Implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 23, 109–112

12.

Hadaway

Marek-Schroer

M. F.

(1992). Multidimensional assessment of the gifted minority student. Roeper Review, 15, 73–77

13.

Hoover

H. D.

Dunbar

S. B.

Frisbie

D. A.

(2001). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Itasca, IL: Riverside

14.

Kirschenbaum

R. J.

(1998). Dynamic assessment and its use with underserved gifted and talented populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 140–147

15.

Lewis

J. D.

(2001). Language isn't needed: Nonverbal assessments and gifted learners. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453026)

16.

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 (1), 74–96

17.

Lohman

D. F.

(2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111–138

18.

Lohman

D. F.

Hagen

E. P.

(2001). Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 6. Itasca, IL: Riverside

19.

Maker

C. J.

(2005). The DISCOVER Project: Improving assessment and curriculum for diverse gifted learners (Research Monograph 05206). Storrs: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut

20.

Mills

Tissot

(1995). Identifying academic potential in students from underrepresented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209–217

21.

Naglieri

J. A.

(2002). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation

22.

Naglieri

J. A.

Ford

D. Y.

(2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155–161

23.

Naglieri

J. A.

Kaufman

J. C.

(2001). Understanding intelligence, giftedness, and creativity using PASS theory. Roeper Review, 23, 151–156

24.

Newton

R. R.

Rudestam

K. E.

(1999). Your statistical consultant. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

25.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (n.d.). Measures of academic progress. Lake Oswego, OR: Author

26.

Otis

A. S.

Lennon

R. T.

(1989). Otis-Lennon School Ability Test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation

27.

Passow

A. H.

Frasier

M. M.

(1996). Toward improving identification of talent potential among minority and disadvantaged students. Roeper Review, 18, 198–202

28.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

(2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 161–169

29.

Raven

J. C.

Court

J. H.

Raven

(1983). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. London: H. K. Lewis

30.

Robinson

Shore

B. M.

Enersen

(2006). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock

31.

Sarouphim

K. M.

(2002). DISCOVER in high school: Identifying gifted Hispanic and Native American students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 14, 30–38

32.

Sarouphim

K. M.

(2003, April). DISCOVER in middle school: Identifying gifted minority students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago

33.

South Carolina State Department of Education. (2006). Technical reports. Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://ed.sc.gov/agency/offices/assessment/publications/index_of_technical_reports.htm

34.

Swanson

J. D.

(2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 11–25

35.

Thorndike

Hagen

Sattler

(1985). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition. Chicago: Riverside

36.

VanTassel-Baska

Feng

A. X.

(2003). Project STAR follow-up study. Williamsburg, VA: The College of William and Mary, Center for Gifted Education

37.

VanTassel-Baska

Feng

A. X.

Chandler

Quek

Swanson

(2005). Project STAR: A two year research study report. Williamsburg, VA: The College of William and Mary, Center for Gifted Education

38.

VanTassel-Baska

Feng

A. X.

Evans

(2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A three year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 1–14

39.

VanTassel-Baska

Johnson

Avery

L. D.

(2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 110–123

40.

VanTassel-Baska

Patton

Prillaman

(1991). Gifted youth at risk: A report of a national study. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children

41.

Wechsler

(1967). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence. Cleveland, OH: The Psychological Corporation

42.

Wechsler

(1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale-Revised. Cleveland, OH: The Psychological Corporation

43.

Wechsler

(1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation