Based on Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, the DISCOVER assessment was designed to identify gifted minority students for placement into programs for the gifted. In previous studies, the reliability and validity of the assessment in elementary grades were examined and yielded mostly positive results. In this study, similar analyses were carried out to investigate some validity aspects of DISCOVER with secondary students. The sample consisted of 303 predominantly Hispanic and Native American ninth graders. The results provided evidence for an alignment of the assessment with the theory of multiple intelligences. Also, no overall gender or ethnic differences were found in the numbers of students identified. In addition, the results suggested that the use of the DISCOVER assessment might help in reducing the problem of minority students' under-representation in programs for the gifted, as 29.3% of the high school students who participated in this study were identified as gifted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerE. L. (1996). Introduction to theme issue in educational assessment. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 194–196.
2.
BakerE. L.O'NeilH. F.LinnR. L. (1994). Policy and validity prospects for performance-based assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 17, 332–353.
3.
BaldwinA. Y. (1985). Programs for the gifted and talented: Issues concerning minority populations. In HorrowitzF.O'BrienM. (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 223–249). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
ClasenD. R.MiddletonJ. A.ConnellT. J. (1994). Assessing artistic and problem-solving performance in minority and nonminority students using a nontraditional multidimensional approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 27–37.
6.
ColemanM. R.GallagherJ. J. (1995). State identification policies: Gifted students from special populations. Roeper Review, 17, 268–275.
7.
CumminsJ. (1991). Institutionalized racism and the assessment of minority children: A comparison of policies and programs in the United States and Canada. In SamudaR. J.KongS. L.CumminsJ.Pascual-LeoneJ.LewisJ., (Eds.), Assessment and placement of minority students (pp. 97–107). Kingston/Toronto: Intercultural Social Sciences Publications.
8.
FordD. Y.HarmonD. A. (2001). Equity and excellence: Providing access to gifted education for culturally diverse students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 12, 141–148.
9.
GardnerH. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.
10.
GardnerH. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 200–209.
11.
GriffithsS. E. (1996). The inter-observer reliability of the DISCOVER problem-solving assessment. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona, Tucson.
12.
HunsakerS. L. (1994). Adjustment to traditional procedures for identifying underserved students: Successes and failures. Exceptional Children, 61, 72–76.
13.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (1992). Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted: Implications for the math-science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 61–66.
14.
MakerC. J. (1993). Creativity, intelligence, and problem solving: A definition and design for cross-cultural research and measurement related to giftedness. Gifted Education International, 9, 68–77.
15.
MakerC. J. (1994). Authentic assessment of problem solving and giftedness in secondary school students. Journal of Secondary Education, 21(1), 19–29.
16.
MakerC. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes, and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41–50.
17.
MakerC. J.NielsonA. B.RogersJ. A. (1994). Giftedness, diversity, and problem-solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27, 4–19.
18.
NielsonA. B. (1994). Traditional identification: Elitist, racist, sexist? New evidence. Communicator: The Journal of the California Association for the Gifted, 24(3), 18–31.
19.
OgbuJ. U. (1994). From cultural differences to differences in cultural frame of reference. In GreenfieldP. M.CockingR. R. (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 365–391). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
PluckerJ. A.CallahanC. M.TomchinE. M. (1996). Wherefore art thou, multiple intelligences? Alternative assessments for identifying talent in ethnically diverse and low income students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 81–90.
21.
ReidC.UdallA.RomanoffB.AlgozzineB. (1999). Comparison of traditional and problem-solving assessment criteria. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 252–264.
22.
SarouphimK. M. (1999a). DISCOVER: A promising alternative assessment for the identification of gifted minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 244–251.
23.
SarouphimK. M. (1999b). Discovering multiple intelligence through a performance-based assessment: Consistency with independent ratings. Exceptional Children, 65, 151–161.
24.
SarouphimK. M. (2000). Internal structure of DISCOVER: A performance-based assessment. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 314–327.
25.
SarouphimK. M. (2001). Concurrent validity, gender differences, and identification of minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 130–138.
26.
SternbergR. J. (1991). Giftedness according to the triarchic theory of human intelligence. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 45–54). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
27.
TravisJ. E. (1996). Meaningful assessment. The Clearing House, 69, 308–312.
28.
WorthenB. R. (1993). Critical issues that will determine the future of alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 444–454.
