Discover: Concurrent validity, gender differences, and identification of minority students

Gifted Child Quarterly

Volumn 45, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 130-138

  Sarouphim, Ketty M ^a  

^a LEBANESE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (Lebanon)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041078856     PISSN: 00169862     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001698620104500206     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Baker, E. L. (1996). Introduction to theme issue in educational assessment. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 194-196.
2. Baldwin, A.Y. (1985). Programs for the gifted and talented: Issues concerning minority populations. In F. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented:Developmental perspectives (pp. 223-249). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Borland, J. M., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 164-171.
4. Clasen, D. R., Middleton, J. A, & Connell, T. J. (1994). Assessing artistic and problem-solving performance in minority and nonminority students using a nontraditional multidimensional approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 27-37.
5. Cummins, J. (1991). Institutionalized racism and the assessment of minority children: A comparison of policies and programs in the United States and Canada. In R. J. Samuda, S. L. Kong, J. Cummins, J. Pascual-Leone, & J. Lewis (Eds.), Assessment and placement of minority students (pp. 97-107). Kingston/Toronto: Intercultural Social Sciences Publications.
6. Frechtling, J. A. (1991). Performance assessment: Moonstruck or the real thing? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 10(4), 23-25.
7. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
8. Gardner, H. (1992). Assessment in context: The alternative to standardized testing. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O'Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 77-120). Boston: Kluwer.
9. Gardner, H. (2000, April). Intelligence reframed. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
10. Griffiths, S. E. (1996). The inter-observer reliability of the DISCOVER problem-solving assessment. Unpublished manuscript, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
11. Griffiths, S. E. (1997). The comparative validity of assessments based on different theories for the purpose of identifying gifted ethnic minority students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
12. Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: The Free Press.
13. Macavoy, J., Orr, S., & Sidles, G. (1993, fall). The Raven Matrices and Navajo children: Normative characteristics and culture fair application to issues of intelligence, gittedness, and academic proficiency. Journal of American Indian Education, 33(1), 32-43.
14. Maker, C. J. (1992). Intelligence and creativity in multiple intelligences: Identification and development. Educating Able Learners, 17(4), 12-19.
15. Maker, C. 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.
16. Maker, C. J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes, and a promising solution. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 41-50.
17. Maker, C. J., Nielson, A. B., & Rogers, J. A. (1994).Giftedness, diversity, and problem-solving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), 4-19.
18. Marland, S. P., Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented (V.I.). Report to the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19. Mills, C. J., & Tissot, S. L. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students from under-represented populations: Is using the Raven's Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209-217.
20. Nevo, B. (1994). Definitions, ideologies, and hypotheses in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 184-186.
21. Nielson, A. B. (1994). Traditional identification: Elitist, racist, sexist? New evidence. Communicator: The Journal of the California Association for the Gifted, 24(3), 18-31.
22. Plucker, J. A., Callahan, C. M., & Tomchin, E. 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.
23. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1977). Coloured Progressive Matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
24. Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1988,). Manual for the Standard Progressive Matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
25. Renzulli, J. S. (1979). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184.
26. Samuda, R. J. (1991). Psychometric factors in the appraisal of intelligence. In R. J. Samuda, S. L. Kong, J. Cummins, J. Pascual-Leone, & J. Lewis (Eds.), Assessment and placement of minority students (pp. 25-40). Kingston/Toronto: Intercultural Social Sciences Publications.
27. Sarouphim, K. M. (1999). DISCOVER: A promising alternative assessment for the identification of gifted minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43, 244-251.
28. Sarouphim, K. M. (1997). Observation of problem-solving in multiple intelligences: Internal structure of the DISCOVER assessment checklist. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
29. Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd. ed.). San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler.
30. Scott, M. S., Perou, R., Urbano, R., Hogan, A., & Gold, S.(1992). The identification of giftedness: A comparison of White, Hispanic, and Black families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 131-139.
31. Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Giftedness according to the triarchic theory of human intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 45-54). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
32. Terman, L. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. In L. Terman (Ed.), Genetic studies of genius (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.