Gifted Education International

62 downloads 806 Views 3MB Size Report
at least partially social, or knowing and managing .... the same sequence as the examiner said them, with ... The examiner teaches the child the word or concept ...
Gifted Education International http://gei.sagepub.com/ Assessing Gifted Children with the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children −− Second Edition (KABC-II) Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Martin A. Volker, Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman Gifted Education International 2006 21: 99 DOI: 10.1177/026142940602100304 The online version of this article can be found at: http://gei.sagepub.com/content/21/2-3/99

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Gifted Education International can be found at: Email Alerts: http://gei.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://gei.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://gei.sagepub.com/content/21/2-3/99.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 1, 2006 What is This?

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

Gifted Education International 2006 Vol 21, pp 99-126 ©2006 A B Academic Publishers

Elizabeth 0. Lichtenberger Alliant International University, San Diego, CA Martin A. Volker University at Buffalo, SUNY Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman Yale University School of Medicine

assessing gifted children with the kaufman assessment battery for children • second edition (KABC·II) Abstract The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (KABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a) is an individually administered intelligence test for children ages 3 to 18. The theory-based test was designed for use in a wide variety of clinical, psychoeducational, and neuropsychological situations, including the assessment of the intellectually gifted. This article provides a context for assessing intellectually gifted children with the KABC-II. General definitional issues in the assessment of gifted children are reviewed, followed by specific conceptions of intellectual giftedness, and details of appropriate assessment procedures. With this foundation of general information on giftedness, the KABC-II's structure, scales, and psychometric properties are described; finally the benefits and limitations of using the KABC-II for assessing gifted children are explored and a comprehensive case study is provided.

Assessing Gifted Children with the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children - Second Edition (KABC-II) There are perhaps as many ways of defining giftedness or being gifted as there are people

in the field. An examination of the literature quickly gives one a sense of the culturally relative, value-laden, and sometimes arbitrary nature of the term "gifted". Definitional issues have haunted the field from its inception and continue to be an area of preeminent concern (Coleman & Cross, Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 99

E-mail: [email protected]

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

2001; Pfeiffer, 2001). However, this definitional problem is not in any way unique to the giftedness literature. The intelligence and cognitive assessment literature have been in a state of continuous debate regarding the definition of intelligence (see Sternberg & Detterman, 1986; Sattler, 2001) at least since the time of Spearman (1904) and Thurstone (1938). Given the traditional role of intellectual ability in defining giftedness within the western world, the lack of consensus on a definition of giftedness is perhaps less surprising.

Giftedness: The Definitional and Measurement Dilemma Sternberg (1993, 1995) showed how the various definitions of giftedness tend to share an "implicit" set of underlying assumptions. These assumptions translate into the five broad necessary and sufficient conditions of excellence, rarity, productivity, demonstrability, and value. The value-laden nature of what different societies, subcultures, and individuals consider worthwhile abilities helps to explain the diversity of views and lack of agreement on a specific definition of giftedness. Within the field, theorists continue to debate which ability or abilities, are valuable and whether the giftedness construct is unidimensional or multidimensional. These debates reflect a healthy dialogue about what is valued within, and across, various contexts. Within the United States, Federal law defines gifted and talented children as those who demonstrate high performance capability in general intellectual ability, creative or productive thinking, artistic areas, leadership, or specific academic domains (U.S. Congress, 1978, Educational Amendment of 1978; U.S. Congress, 1988,

Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988; Marland, 1972; Ross, 1993). Those who fall within the definition are assumed to have educational needs that cannot be met within the standard curriculum. Children with exceptional intellectual or academic abilities may find themselves under challenged and bored in the regular education classroom (Gross, 1993; Westberg, Archambault, Dobyns, & Salvin, 1993). The ultimate concern is that gifted children, if not properly guided, are less likely to reach their full potential or may be more likely to use their abilities for negative ends. Despite this assumption of extraordinary educational needs, services for gifted children are neither federally mandated, nor federally funded. Most states within the US have adopted all or part of the federal definition in their legislation for the gifted. Though the federal definition takes a broad and multifaceted view of giftedness, most school districts focus primarily on high performance capability in general intellectual ability (Callahan, 2000) and/ or specific academic areas (Stephens & Karnes, 2000), which are more reliably, validly, and easily assessed through standardized tests than the other domains. This narrower focus in practice should not be surprising, given the lack of investment in gifted education by the federal government and most state governments. The greater emphasis on intellectual and academic giftedness within public schoolbased programs may also not be surprising, as many consider intellectual and academic development to be the primary focus of schooling in general (e.g., Sparrow & Gurland, 1998). Given that this article ultimately deals with the use of the KABC-11 in assessing gifted children and adolescents, the focus from this point on will be on intellectual

100, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

giftedness. Other forms of giftedness are also important, but here we hope to demonstrate the key role that the KABC-11 can play in measuring the cognitive abilities of children who are potentially gifted.

Operationalizing the Definition of Giftedness The traditional definition of intellectual giftedness is considered to be high general intelligence, as represented by the global IQ on standardized, individually administered intelligence tests (Hollingworth, 1942; Terman, 1925). Best practice dictates that intelligence test scores should be interpreted with a sensitivity to: (a) the student's cultural background; (b) possible physical, sensory, or learning disabilities; (c) the known errors in measurement associated with the test (Kaufman & Harrison, 1986); and (d) known uneven of prevalence population development between different expressions of intelligence (Sparrow & Gurland, 1998; Wechsler, 1991). Cut-off scores for IQ tests are controversial and generally determined in an arbitrary manner according to the local needs of the state or school district in famous Terman's Lewis question. longitudinal study of over 1500 gifted children (Burks, Jensen, & Terman, 1930; Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959), used minimum global IQ cut-off scores ranging from 132 to 140 (depending on the age group) on the Stanford-Binet. Ellen Winner (1997) considered children with global intelligence scores in the 130-150 range to be labeled "moderately gifted," while those with global IQ scores of 180 or above she considered "profoundly gifted" (p. 1071). She further indicated that most programs for the intellectually gifted in the U.S. focus on children in the moderately

gifted range of IQ who generally perform at a level one to two years above their age peers. Most sources appear to put the minimum cut score at an IQ of 130 or at the 98th percentile (e.g., Naglieri & Kaufman, 2001; Sattler, 1992; Simpson et. al., 2002). However, others have reported lower cut scores that encompass the upper 5% (e.g., Gridley, Norman, Rizza, & Decker, 2003) or 8% (e.g., Renzulli & Reis, 1991 as cited in Davis & Rimm, 1998) of the IQ distribution. Despite the common use of a cut-off score for identifying intellectually gifted children with an intelligence test (see Kaufman & Harrison, 1986; Robinson & Chamrad, 1986), it is generally assumed that an intelligence test will be only one piece of an identification process that uses multiple measures (Gallagher, 1994). Using multiple criteria (e.g., a variety of cognitive abilities, creativity, achievement motivation or task commitment, leadership, etc.), and information gained from multiple sources (e.g., test data, grades, school products, extracurricular products, portfolios, teacher nomination/reports, parent nomination/ reports, peer nomination/ reports, selfnomination/reports, etc.) is considered the best practice for identifying gifted children (Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Pfeiffer, 2001; Richert, 1997; Sternberg & Kaufman, 1998). A multi-method assessment may lead to identification of a gifted child with only a moderate intelligence score, or such an assessment may identify highly intelligent children who are not performing well in class and I or who the teacher would not nominate as gifted for other reasons (Kaufman & Harrison, 1986).

Theoretical Models of Giftedness Most models of giftedness were formulated in reaction to the traditional definition that . Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 101

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

was based on global IQ. Some models attempted to broaden the definition of giftedness to include nonintellective factors (e.g., Renzulli, 1986; Tannenbaum, 1996), while others broadened the concept of giftedness by offering a broader perspective on intelligence (e.g., Gardner, 1983; Sternberg, 1997a). Several of these will be described below. However, it is important to keep in mind that these alternative conceptions all still include what is measured by traditional intelligence tests. They simply try to expand the definitions of giftedness or intelligence to honor a greater range of abilities or talents.

Multiple Intelligences (MI) Model Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner (1983, 1993) put forth a theory of multiple intelligences, which has become a model for multiple forms of giftedness (Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 1997). Under this model an intelligence is defined as "... an ability or set of abilities that permit an individual to solve problems or fashion products that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting" (Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 1997, p. 55). According to the theory, each intelligence is relatively autonomous and capable of independent functioning. Initially, Gardner (1983) produced a list of seven intelligences, which were not to be considered exhaustive. These intelligences are linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. He has since added naturalist intelligence in 1995 and is currently considering the addition of spiritual intelligence and existential intelligence (Gardner, 1998). Note that the first three intelligences (i.e., linguistic, logical-mathematical, and spatial)

are all measured, at least to some extent, by current standardized individually administered intelligence tests and/ or achievement tests. However, as Ramos-Ford and Gardner (1997) indicated, their multiple intelligences "...approach to assessment makes a conscious move away from traditional testing methods" (p. 58). Their preference is for more "contextualized" and "ecologically valid" assessment methods (p. 58). According to the model, a child could be gifted by virtue of high-level performance in any one or more of the intelligences. Identification of these gifts, is accomplished through the use of a more ecological approach that attempts to assess the use of these intelligences as they operate naturally for the child-through activities in the classroom, games with peers, and projects designed to be clearly related to the various intelligences (see Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 1997).

The Triarchic Model Sternberg's (1997a) triarchic model of giftedness is rooted in his triarchic theory of intelligence (Sternberg, 1985, 1988, 1997b). (Note that the triarchic theory of intelligence has evolved into what Sternberg [1997c, 2003] now refers to as the theory of successful intelligence). Triarchic theory divides intellectual activity into componential, experiential, and contextual elements, which work together to produce intelligent behavior. Each of these three elements involves a detailed subtheory within the overall triarchic theory. The componential subtheory includes metacomponents (e.g., executive functions for planning, monitoring, and evaluating), performance components (i.e., processes used to solve problems such as encoding, inference, mapping, and application), and knowledge acquisition components (i.e., components crucial to

102, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

learning new information such as selection of relevant information for encoding, selectively combining information, and analogical reasoning). The experiential subtheory includes the ability to deal effectively or creatively with novel problems and situations, as well as the ability to automatize procedures used to deal with more familiar problems or situations. The contextual subtheory involves elements focused on adapting to a given environment, selecting an appropriate environment, and shaping one's present environment to meet one's needs. Sternberg's triarchic model of giftedness makes a distinction between analytical, synthetic, and practical giftedness (Stemberg, 1997a). The analytical form emphasizes the componential aspect of the triarchic theory. A person with strong analytic abilities is likely to do well on traditional intelligence tests. The synthetic form of giftedness deals primarily with the experiential aspect of the triarchic theory. A person with strong synthetic abilities may be considered unusually creative, intuitive, or insightful. The synthetic ability to see many possibilities in something can, at times, negatively affect one's score on a traditional intelligence test. The practical form of giftedness focuses mainly on the contextual element of the triarchic theory. A person with strong practical abilities is good at figuring out what is required for success in various environments, selecting the right environment to fit her /his skills, and applying her /his analytic and synthetic abilities to get things done therein. This person may be called politically astute, streetsmart, or business savvy, depending on the context. Sternberg's triarchic model of giftedness appears to yield two different views of what it means to be gifted. The first simply implies that a person can be gifted in terms of

analytical, synthetic, or practical abilities. The second view indicates that giftedness is about being a good coordinator or manager of one's abilities. As Sternberg (1997a} indicated, "Giftedness is as much a wellmanaged balance of these three abilities as it is a high score on any one or more of them. I therefore sometimes refer to a gifted person as a good 'mental self-manager."' (p. 44).

Luria's Neuropsychological Model Luria (1966, 1973, 1980) posited a neuropsychological model of human cognitive processing. His interest was primarily in clinical populations. Thus, he never applied his model to gifted children. However, his theory has informed the development of several modem assessment instruments (e.g., the original K-ABC [Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983], the KABC-11, and the Cognitive Assessment System [CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997a]}, which are used to assess for intellectual giftedness. Luria's model, at its most basic level, involves three functional units or blocks that work together to allow the brain to produce complex behavior. Block one regulates arousal and attention. Block two involves the use of one's senses to analyze, code, and store information using simultaneous and I or successive processing strategies. Block three includes executive functions for the purpose of planning, programming, and monitoring behavior. The blocks are interdependent and support each other in all forms of conscious activity (Luria, 1973}. They each contribute to varying degrees based on the nature of the activity or demands of the task. In the assessment of intellectually gifted children, the focus would likely be on how the blocks work together to deal effectively with Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 103

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

complexity, produce high-level thinking, and yield efficient problem solving. The PASS model (Das, Naglieri, & Kirby, 1994; Naglieri, 1989; Naglieri & Das, 1988; Naglieri & Das, 1997b) of intellectual functioning is based on Luria's earlier work. The PASS model stands for Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, and Successive modes of cognitive activity. Planning involves executive functions and is related primarily to Luria's block three. Attention allows one to focus on one stimulus or task and block out others, or to attend to multiple things at once (e.g., as in multi-tasking). It is rooted primarily in the activity of block one. Simultaneous processing is holistic and involves integrating separate stimuli into a whole (e.g., visual gestalt), while successive processing is sequential or serial in nature and involves integrating stimuli into a linear order (e.g., temporal order, numeric ranking, etc.). Simultaneous and successive processing are primarily grounded in block two. Naglieri and Kaufman (2001) have argued for applying the PASS model of intelligence to the identification of intellectually and creatively gifted children. They suggested that the CAS (Naglieri & Das, 1997a), based on the PASS model, has ·the strength of being grounded in a multidimensional cognitive theory, which allows for the potential identification of PAS5-based intellectual strengths or gifts that other traditional intelligence tests do not assess. They also pointed to literature that supports a relationship between the planning construct of the PASS model and creativity (Naglieri & Kaufman, 2000, p. 155). Thus, instruments based on Luria's theory, in so far as they assess the planning aspect of the model, may also be useful in assessing creativity.

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Model The CHC theory represents a convergence of two independent lines of research into human cognitive abilities. The first line began with R.B. Cattell's (1941, 1963) dichotomous Gf-Gc theory, which John Horn (1985, 1998; Horn & Noll, 1997) expanded to include nine or 10 (see McGrew, 1997) broad cognitive abilities and at least 55 narrow abilities. A global g factor was intentionally excluded from Horn-Cattell's Gf-Gc model, as Horn (1985) argued against its inclusion. The second line emerged from John Carroll's (1993) exploratory factor analytic survey of 461 data sets. This survey work lead to the formation of three stratum theory, which posited 69 narrow factors at stratum I, eight broad factors at stratum II, and one global factor (i.e., "g") at stratum three. The overlap at the broad and narrow factor levels between the two lines of research was considerable. An integrated CHC model was organized into three levels or strata with approximately 70 narrow level abilities, eight to 10 broad level abilities (i.e., Fluid Reasoning [Gf], Crystallized Ability [Gc], Visual Processing [Gv ], Auditory Processing [Ga], Short-Term Memory [Gsm], Long-Term Storage And Retrieval [Glr ], Processing Speed [Gs], Decision Speed [Gt], and [Gq], Reasoning Quantitative Reading/Writing [Grw]), and general intelligence ("g") at the top of the hierarchy. According to CHC theory, rather than being mutually exclusive, cognitive and academic abilities can be thought of as lying on a continuum with those abilities that develop largely through formal education and direct learning and instruction at one end (e.g., Grw, Gq) and abilities that develop as a result of informal and indirect learning and instruction at the other end (e.g., Gf). (see McGrew, 2005, for an in-depth, insightful

104, Gifted Educatwn International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

discussion of the past, present, and future of CHCtheory) Gridley, Norman, Rizza, & Decker (2003) crafted an operational definition of intellectual giftedness based on CHC theory. They defined intellectually gifted students as: " ... those who have demonstrated (1) superior potential or performance in general intellectual ability (stratum III) and/ or (2) exceptional potential or performance in specific intellectual abilities (stratum II) and/ or (3) exceptional general or specific academic aptitudes (strata I and II) .... Within our definition we define superior as the top 10% of the population and exceptional as the top 5% of the population" (p. 291). Though the selection percentages are arbitrary, this CHC model of intellectual giftedness allows for high performance at the global, broad, or narrow levels of the model to qualify. Furthermore, note that the model contains general intellectual ability, stratum II cognitive abilities (e.g., Gf, Gc, Gv, etc.), and what might more popularly be considered specific academic aptitudes (e.g., broad or narrow aspects of Gq, Grw, etc.). This yields a broad psychometric view of giftedness. However, it needs to be considered what importance some abilities at the broad and narrow level may have for people. High Gf, Gc, or Gv in isolation may have clear connections to current gifted programming. However, what implications would high Ga, Gs, or Gt in isolation have? How would a person with exceptionally high Gs in isolation be considered gifted? These may be practical issues or a question of values. In the abstract the definition is broad and inclusive, but may require some modification for practical application. How these issues resolve remains to be seen.

Overlap Among the Models There is considerable overlap among the various models of giftedness. The first three intelligences under Gardner's model (e.g., linguistic, logical-mathematic, and spatial) appear to be abilities measured to some extent by traditional intelligence tests. From a CHC perspective at the broad level, Gardner's linguistic intelligence is Gc, logical-mathematical is a combination of Gf and Gq, and spatial is Gv. From Sternberg's triarchic or successful model, Gardner's linguistic and logical-mathematical appear to fall generally under the analytical ability domain. The synthetic domain appears to at least influence the more creative or artistic part of Gardner's model (e.g., musical intelligence). The practical domain may be related to Gardner's interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligences, as these all seem to involve navigating environments that are at least partially social, or knowing and managing one's personal strengths and weaknesses. Luria's model, being more process-oriented, involves elements that would be involved to some degree in each of the elements of the other intelligence models. However, from a measurement perspective using CHC proxies, simultaneous processes are generally measured through Gv-related tasks, successive processes are generally measured through Gsm-related tasks, and planning is measured as a blend of Gf narrow abilities that closely resembles the broad Gf ability. Indeed, the abilities that Luria described as prefrontal cortex planning abilities and that Cattell, Hom, and Carroll described as fluid intelligence not only resemble each other, but are remarkably similar in concept to Piaget's (1972) developmental stage of formal operational thought. Of course, the parallels presented above are not by any means perfect or exhaustive, Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 105

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

but are merely meant to illustrate the clear overlap in the constructs represented across the various models. This overlap should suggest to the reader that despite disagreements about definitions and the scope of giftedness, there is some core level of agreement in these commonalities. In the end, intelligence, however broadly or narrowly defined, is included in all of the models.

Use of the KABC-II with Intellectually Gifted Children With a definition of giftedness presented and the theoretical models underlying this concept elucidated, we now present details on the KABC-ll, including a description of the test's theoretical base, its scales and subtests, and its psychometric properties. The features of the KABC-11 that make it a useful measure for the assessment of gifted children are then highlighted.

KABC-II Theory and Scale Structure The KABC-11 is based on two of the theories discussed in previous sections: the CHC model and Luria's model. The dual theoretical perspective that the KABC-11 offers allows clinicians to select the model for each child or adolescent that is best suited to an individual's background and reasons for referral. The constructs underlying the test provide useful insights into children's learning abilities and problem solving strategies, and the dual theoretical model allows for process-oriented interpretations from either model depending on the needs of the clinician, and the person being assessed.

The KABC-11 has five scales. From Luria's perspective, the KABC-11 scales assess Learning Ability, Sequential Processing, Simultaneous Processing, and Planning Ability. From a CHC perspective, the KABC-ll measures Long-term Storage and Retrieval (Glr), Short-term Memory (Gsm), Visual Processing (Gv), Fluid Reasoning (Gf), and Crystallized Ability (Gc). The names of the KABC-II's scales reflect both the Luria process each is believed to measure and its CHC Broad Ability: LearningiGlr, SequentialiGsm, SimultanteousiGv, and PlanningiGf. However, the Knowledge I Gc scale only reflects Crystallized Ability from the CHC model, as it is specifically excluded from the Luria process-oriented system. The KABC-11 yields two global scores: the Mental Processing Index (MPI) and the Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI). The MPI is the global score based on the Luria model, while FCI is the global score based on the CHC model. The subtests that contribute to the Luria and CHC scales are identical with the exception of the Knowledge I Gc subtests, which are only included in the CHC model. In addition to the FCI and MPI, the KABC-11 has a Nonverbal Scale, with subtests that can be administered in pantomine and responded to motorically. This scale yields a global Nonverbal Index (NVI), which is especially useful in the assessment of children who are hearing impaired, who have limited English proficiency, have moderate to severe speech or language impairments, or who have other disabilities that make the Core Battery unsuitable. The number of scales that the KABC-11 yields varies slightly with age. For example, at age 3, only global scales are provided (i.e., FCI, MPI, or NVI). For ages 4-6, the global scales plus three or four scales are provided: Learning I Glr, Sequential I Gsm, Simul-

106, Gifted EducaHon International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

tanteous/Gv, and Knowledge/Gc. For ages 7-18, the Planning/Gf scale joins the aforementioned scales, yielding either four (Luria) or five (CHC) scales. The KABC-11 includes a Core and an Expanded Battery. The expanded battery includes supplementary subtests to increase the breadth of the constructs that are

measured by the Core battery. Scores earned on the supplementary subtests do not contribute to the child's standard scores on the KABC-11 scales (except for the Nonverbal Scale). The KABC-11 Manual and Record Form detail which subtests comprise the Core and Expanded Batteries at each age, and Table 1 provides a brief description of the KABC-11 subtests.

Table 1: Description of KABC-II Subtests Age

Scale/Subtest Core Sequential/ Gsm Subtests Word Order

3-18

Number Recall

4-18

Supplementary

Description

The child touches a series of silhouettes of common objects in the same order as the examiner said the names of the objects; more difficult items include an interference task (color naming) between the stimulus and response. The child repeats a series of numbers in the same sequence as the examiner said them, with series ranging in length from 2 to 9 numbers; the numbers are single digits, except that 10 is used instead of 7 to ensure that all numbers are one syllable.

3

4-18

Hand Movements

Non-Verbal

3-18

The child copies the examiner's precise sequence of taps on the table with the fist, palm, or side of the hand.

Simultaneous/ Gv Subtests Rover

6-18

Triangles

3-12

The child moves a toy dog to a bone on a checkerboard-like grid that contains obstacles (rocks and weeds), and tries to find the "quickest" path-the one that takes the fewest moves. 13-18

3-18

For most items, the child assembles several identical rubber triangles (blue on one side, yellow on the other) to match a picture of an abstract design; for easier items, the child assembles a different set of colorful rubber shapes to match a model constructed by the examiner.

Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 107

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

Simultaneous/ Core Gv Subtests Conceptual Thinking

3-6

Face Recognition

3-4

Supplementary

5

Gestalt Closure

3-18

Block Counting 13-18

5-12

Non-Verbal

Description

3-6

The child views a set of 4 or 5 pictures and the child identifies the one picture that does not belong with the others; some items present meaningful stimuli and others use abstract stimuli.

3-5

The child attends closely to photographs of one or two faces that are exposed briefly, and then selects the correct face or faces, shown in a different pose, from a group photograph. The child mentally "fills in the gaps" in a partially completed "inkblot" drawing and names (or describes) the object or action depicted in the drawing.

7-18

The child counts the exact number of blocks in various pictures of stacks of blocks; the stacks are configured such that one or more blocks is hidden or partially hidden from view.

Planning/Gf Pattern Reasoning"

7-18

5-18

The child is shown a series of stimuli that form a logical, linear pattern, but one stimulus is missing; the child completes the pattern by selecting the correct stimulus from an array of 4 to 6 options at the bottom of the page (most stimuli are abstract, geometric shapes, but some easy items use meaningful stimuli).

Story Completiona

7-18

6-18

The child is shown a row of pictures that tell a story, but some of the pictures are missing. The child is given a set of pictures, selects only the ones that are needed to complete the story, and places the missing pictures in their correct locations.

Learning/ Glr Subtests Atlantis

3-18

The examiner teaches the child the nonsense names for fanciful pictures of fish, plants, and shells; the child demonstrates learning by pointing to each picture (out of an array of pictures) when it is named.

108, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

Planning/Gf

Core

Non-Verbal

5-18

AtlantisDelayed

Rebus

Supplementary

4-18

The child demonstrates delayed recall of paired associations learned about 15-25 minutes earlier during Atlantis by pointing to the picture of the fish, plant, or shell that is named by the examiner. The examiner teaches the child the word or concept associated with each particular rebus (drawing) and the child then "reads" aloud phrases and sentences composed of these rebuses.

5-18

Rebus -Delayed

Description

The child demonstrates delayed recall of paired associations learned about 15-25 minutes earlier during Rebus by "reading" phrases and sentences composed of those same rebuses.

Knowledge/ Gc Subtests Riddles

3-18

Expressive Vocabulary

3-6

7-18

The child provides the name of a pictured object.

Verbal Knowledge

7-18

3-6

The child selects from an array of 6 pictures the one that corresponds to a vocabulary word or answers a general information question.

The examiner provides several characteristics of a concrete or abstract verbal concept and the child has to point to it (early items) or name it (later items).

Note: Descriptions are adapted from KABC-11 Manual (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a) •At Ages 5-6 Pattern Reasoning and Story Completion are categorized as Simultaneous/Gv subtests.

Psychometric Properties of the KABC-II The KABC-11 is a psychometrically strong instrument. Detailed information on its reliability and validity are presented in the KABC-11 Manual (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a) and elsewhere (Kaufman, Lichtenberger, Fletcher-Janzen, & Kaufman, 2005), but we provide a summary here. The average internal consistency coefficients are

.95 for the MPI at both ages 3-6 and ages 718; for the FCI the means are .96 for ages 3-6 and .97 for ages 7-18. Internal consistency values for individual subtests ranged from .69 for Hand Movements to .92 on Rebus (for ages 3-6), and for the 7-18 age group internal consistency values ranged from .74 on Gestalt Closure to .93 on Rebus. The median internal consistency value for the individual subtests was .84 for ages 3-6 and .86 for ages 7-18. Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 109

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

The KABC-11 is a fairly stable instrument with average test-retest coefficients for the MPI of .86 (ages 3-5), .89 (ages 7-12), and .91 (ages 13-18). Average test-retest coefficients for the FCI were .90, .91, and .94 at ages 3-5, 7-12, and 13-18, respectively. Across the three broad age groups, the ranges of the stability values of Learning/ Glr (.76-.81), Sequential/ Gsm (79-.80) Simultaneous/Gv (.74-.78), Planning/Gf (.80-.82), and Knowledge/Gc (.88-.95) denote adequate stability. The Simultaneous/Gv emerged as the least stable of all the composite scores. The validity of the KABC-11 was supported by factor analytic studies, correlational data, and by special clinical group studies reported in the KABC-11 Manual. Results of confirmatory factor analyses across age levels supported different batteries at different age levels. The confirmatory factor analyses also strongly supported the theory-based scale structure of the KABC-11. Correlations between the KABC-11 and other major intelligence tests further indicated the test's validity. Correlations ranged from .71 to .91 between the global scales of the KABC-II and other intelligence tests (e.g., WISC-III, WISC-IY, WPPSI-III, KAIT, and WJ III).

Strengths of the KABC-II for Assessing Intellectually Gifted Children There are several characteristics of the KABC-11 that make it especially suitable for assessing children and adolescents who are gifted. These characteristics, described below, include: its ability to fairly assess children with linguistic and cultural differences, its low emphasis on speed of performance, its high test ceilings, its out-oflevel norms, its ability to assess many cross-

theoretical constructs relevant to giftedness, and its qualitative indicators.

Ability to fairly assess children with linguistic and cultural differences. In many cases, the KABC-II's CHC-model is appealing for assessing intellectually gifted children given that this model includes the Knowledge I Gc scale, and many gifted children have strong Crystallized Abilities. However, in cases where the culturally- and linguistically-laden nature of the Knowledge I Gc scale may be a less appropriate measure of cognitive ability, the Luria model (which excludes this scale) may be deemed the most useful measure of intellectual ability. For example, if the examiner is evaluating a child with speech/language difficulties or for whom English is a second language, Knowledge I Gc may not be appropriate. In cases of more severe speech/language issues, hearing loss, or limited English proficiency, the Nonverbal Scale may be most appropriate. Thus, the KABC-11 offers a number of options for the assessment of more typical and special populations of gifted children. This flexibility allows the examiner to reduce the impact of linguistic and cultural issues, and to more fairly assess gifted children with disabilities. The KABC-11, like its predecessor, yields reduced score differences between various ethic and cultural groups. Thus, the test contributes to a more culturally fair assessment process in general. Kaufman et al. (2005) provide a detailed summary of the data on the KABC-II's small differences between various ethnic groups and the implications of these research findings for assessing various ethnic and cultural groups. Mean KABC-11 global scores for the normative sample for groups of African American, Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian children were close to the mean of 100

110, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

when adjusted for sex and socioeconomic status (SES as measured by mother's education). For ages 3 to 6, the adjusted means for the FCI and MPI were about 97 to 100 for African American and Hispanic children (see Table 2), and for ages 7-18 the means were about 95 ± 5 for African American, Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian children and adolescents (see Table 3). For children ages 7-18, African American children and adolescents earned their highest mean Index (adjusted for sex and SES) on the Sequential/Gsm scale (100) followed closely by the Learning I Glr scale (98). In contrast, for that same age range, Hispanic children and adolescents scored

Table 2: Ages 3-6: Mean KABC-11 Global Scores, By Ethnic Group (Adjusted for Gender & SES) Scale

African American

Hispanic

White

MPI FCI NVI

98.7 98.0 96.7

98.2 96.6 99.7

100.9 101.6 100.8

Sample Size

150

162

505

Note: From Table 8.7 of the KABC-II Manual (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a)

highest on the Simultaneous I Gv and the (99); Indexes Planning/Gf Simultaneous I Gv Index was highest for American Indian individuals (101) and Asian individuals (lOS) (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a). Most of the adjusted Indexes for Hispanic children were close to 100 except for the Sequential/ Gsm scale (95), where the language load on Word Order and Number Recall may have interfered with cognitive performance.

Low emphasis on speed of performance. Measures of the processing speed (Gs) and decision speed (Gt) factors from CHC theory were intentionally excluded from the design of the KABC-11. They were excluded because they tend to be too basic in nature (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004c), are problematic for more reflective children (Kaufman, 1994), have relatively low g loadings (Carroll, 1993), and Gs especially is a noted area of relative weakness for intellectually gifted children across assessment instruments (e.g., Kaufman, 1994; Rizza, Mcintosh, & McCunn, 2001; Volker & Phelps, 2004; and Wechsler, 1991). Thus, fact that the KABC-11 does not confound speed with other measures of cognitive ability nor include a separate measure of Gs in its theoretical model is likely beneficial in the assessment of intellectually gifted children.

Table 3: Ages 7-18: Mean KABC-11 Global Scores, By Ethnic Group (Adjusted for Gender & SES) Scale

African American Hispanic American Indian

Asian

White

MPI FCI NVI

95.2 94.5 93.1

96.5 95.8 98.3

96.5 95.6 97.0

104.6 103.9 103.4

101.9 102.4 102.0

Sample Size

315

383

51

62

1,356

Note: From Tables 8.8 of the KABC-11 Manual (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a)

Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 111

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

Although the KABC-11 minimally emphasizes speed of responding, there are three subtests on the test that require timing on later items: Triangles, Pattern Reasoning, and Story Completion. Children and adolescents aged 7 to 18 have the possibility of obtaining one or two extra points on each item that they complete in a rapid time frame. Timing for this age group on these activities was how accurate measurement of high-functioning adolescents was achieved in developing the subtests. However, on the three timed subtests, examiners can ultimately decide to score the subtest without using time points. That is, if in an examiner's professional judgment it would be inappropriate to assign extra points for rapid responding to a child (perhaps because of a motor impairment), then the subtest can be scored without using the time points (by using the norms for "no time points" in the manual). This alternative procedure is an acceptable substitution for the conventional administration procedures so long as examiners never make the decision arbitrarily, but base it on sound clinical judgment or observations.

High test ceilings. For children ages 3 to 18 years old, the KABC-11 allows for the attainment of MPI and FCI standard scores up to 160 or four standard deviations above the mean. The Nonverbal Index can reach scores up to 160 across the age range for the test, with the exception of age 6 years when the maximum score is 159. All other index scores have ceilings ranging from 154 to 160 throughout the age range covered by the test (see Table 4). Thus, the KABC-11 composites and index scores show excellent discrimination on the high end of the test for assessing school age children through the moderately gifted range (i.e., standard scores of 130 to 150 [Winner, 1997]). The subtest scaled scores do not allow for as great a range as the composites, but generally allow

for scores two to three standard deviations above the mean (see Table 5). For the most part this is not a concern, as the focus of interpretation should be at the level of the indexes, not the individual subtests. However, examiners should note that once the child reaches age 13, half of the core subtests in the battery have a ceiling of less than three standard deviations above the mean (i.e., they are lower than a scaled score of 19). These lowered ceilings may begin to restrict the scores of some gifted examinees, depending on their areas of strength. When examiners have clinical reasons for using the norms for "no time points," for example for a potentially gifted individual with motor coordination difficulties, they must be attuned to the possible problems with the ceilings for the three affected subtests-Triangles, Pattern Reasoning, and Story Completion. For Pattern Reasoning, there is virtually no drop-off in the ceiling effect, with or without time bonus points (see Table 5); the ceiling is 19 for all ages with time bonuses, and remains 18-19 even without time bonuses. For Triangles, however, when time bonuses are eliminated, the highest scaled score possible is adequate for ages 7 to 10 years (16-17, which is 2 SDs above the mean), but the ceiling of 12-15 for ages 11 to 18 is not adequate for gifted assessment. Similarly, for Story Completion, the ceiling is adequate (16-19) for ages 7 to 10, but not adequate (13-15) for ages 11-18. Therefore, the option of using the "no time points" option is ideal for any age group when the individuals are of average ability or below. For gifted assessment, however, this option is fine for Pattern Reasoning across the age range and for the other two affected subtests for ages 7 to 10 years. The special option needs to be used cautiously, however, when assessing potentially gifted individuals ages 11 and older on Triangles and Story Completion.

112, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

Table 4: KABC-II Index Ceilings Highest Possible Standard Score Age

Gsm

Gv

Glr

Gf

Gc

FCI &MPI

NVI

13-18 10-12 7-9 6 5 4 3

158 158 158 158 158 158

160 160 157 158 159 160

160 160 160 160 160 160

160 160 160

160 160 160 154 154 154

---

---

---

160 160 160 160 160 160 160

160 160 160 159 160 160 160

---------

---

Note: Data are from Table D.2 of the KABC-11 Manual (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a). Abbreviations for the scales are as follows: Gsm = Sequential I Gsm, Gv = Simultaneous/Gv, Glr = Learning/Glr, Gf = Planning/Gf, Gc = Knowledge/Gc, FCI = Fluid Crystallized Index, MPI =Mental Processing Index, NVI =Nonverbal Index.

Table 5: Maximum Scaled Score that Can be Obtained for Each KABC-11 Subtest at Each Age Age Subtest

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17 18

Atlantis

19

19

18

18

18

18

18

18

17

17

17

17

17

17

17

16

ConceEtualllrinking

18

18

Sto!I ComEletion

19

19

19

19

19

19

18

18

18

17

Sto!I ComEletion No Time Points 19 19 19 Number Recall

17

16

16

15

14

14

14

13

13

13

13

19

19

19

19

19

18

18

18

17

17

17

Gestalt Closure

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

18

18

17

Rover

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

18

18

17

17

Atlantis Delayed

16

16

15

15

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

14

ExEressive Vocabula!I

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

18

16

Verbal Knowledge

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

Rebus

19

19

18

18

18

17

17

17

16

16

15

15

15

Triangles

18

19

19

19

19

19

19

18

17

17

17

17

16

Triangles No Tune Points

17

17

16

16

15

15

14

14

14

13

13

12

Block Counting

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

18

Word Order

19

19

19

19

19

18

17

17

17

17

17

17

16

Pattern Reasoning

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

Pattern Reasoning No Tune Points 19

19

19

19

19

19

18

18

18

18

18

18

Hand Movements

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

18

18

18

18

18

18

Rebus Delayed

19

17

16

16

16

16

16

16

15

14

14

14

14

Riddles

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

18

18 19

Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 113

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

Out-of-level norms. Another advantage the KABC-11 offers in the assessment of intellectually gifted children is the availability of out-of-level testing norms for certain ages. This gives the examiner the option of administering subtests typically reserved for older children to high functioning younger children. For example, an extremely high-functioning 6-year-old may not achieve a ceiling with the 6-year-old battery, but will be appropriately challenged with the battery for children ages 7-12. There are three instances when out-of-level batteries may be administered to high functioning children, as shown in Table 6. And, importantly, the out-of-level battery yields scores based on norms for the child's own age group. For example, if a 6-year-old is

administered the age 7-12 out-of-level battery, then the scores are based on how other 6-yearolds performed on those same subtests.

Assesses many cross-theoretical constructs relevant to giftedness. The KABC-11 was co-normed with the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement: Second Edition (KTEA-11; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004b ), and the administration of these test batteries together allows an even broader measurement of theoretical constructs than the KABC-11 alone. For example, from Gardner's multiple intelligences perspective, the KABC-11 assesses aspects of linguistic and spatial intelligence, as well as the reasoning/logical aspect of logical-mathematic intelligence. KTEA-11

Table 6: Options for Administering an Out-of-Level KABC-11 Battery to Children Who are High Functioning Child's Chronological Age

Administer Core Battery for Age

Advantage of Using the Out-of-Level Battery for Each Age

3

4

It provides the examiner with a full

profile of standard scores on the separate scales, not just the global standard scores yielded at age 3 4

---

5

6

7-12

6

7-12

Using the age-6 battery at age 5 allows the inclusion of Rover on the age 6 Simultaneous I Gv scale, a good measure of problem solving and executive functioning. Administering the 7-12 year battery at age 5 allows inclusion of a separate Planning I Gf standard score at age 7-12 (not available for 5year levels). It allows inclusion of a separate

PlanningiGf standard score at age 7-12 (not available for 6-year levels). 114, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

supplies the additional mathematical component to assess this aspect of Gardner's model. (Gardner's musical, bodilykinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, naturalist, existential, and spiritual intelligences are not assessed by any traditional intelligence tests). Administering the KTEA-11 with the KABC-11 also allows for the assessment of the additional CHC factors Gq, Grw, and Ga. The analytical aspect of Sternberg's triarchic I successful theory of intelligence is clearly assessed by the KABC11, while synthetic and practical abilities are not. In relation to the PASS model based on Luria's work, the KABC-11 directly assesses the planning, simultaneous, and successive elements. However, the test authors felt that the attention/ arousal element of the model, though theoretically important, was too basic a process to contribute meaningfully to the test (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004c). Thus, the learning ability tasks were added instead to assess higher order processes involving the interaction of all three blocks in Luria's model. Subtests of the KTEA-11 also tap Luria's constructs of planning and learning ability and can broaden measurement of these skills with the KABC-II (Kaufman et al., 2005).

Qualitative indicators. The KABC-11 makes available a set of qualitative indicators (Qis) with each subtest. These Qls are test-taking behaviors that could exert either negative or positive influences on test scores, but are known to be generally unrelated to the specific constructs measured by subtests or scales. The pertinent Qls for each subtest are listed directly on the KABC11 protocol for the examiner to check off. For the Triangles subtest, for example, disruptive Qls (denoted with a minus sign) include "Does not monitor accuracy," "Moves pieces haphazardly," "Fails to sustain attention," and "Worries about time limits." Enhancing Qls for Triangles (denoted by +) are

"Perseveres," "Tries out options," "Unusually focused," and "Works quickly but carefully." Although there is no normative comparison available for the Qls, when used properly, these Qls can supply useful supplemental information regarding test behavior and the validity of the administration. This aspect of the KABC-11 makes more potentially important interpretive information readily available to the examiner.

Special Group Study of Gifted Children with the KABC-II A special gifted group study of 95 students was reported in the KABC-11 Manual (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004c). The children's schools identified students in the sample as "high performing or talented in one or more academic, artistic, or leadership categories" (p. 130). The mean age of the sample was 12:11 (ranging from 7:4 to 18:11). The KABC-11 scores for these children were compared to a non-clinical reference group that controlled for the influence of sex, ethnicity, and parent education. The gifted sample scored significantly higher than the non-clinical reference group on all KABC-11 indexes, composites, and subtests. However, the gifted mean index scores of the gifted sample were generally only 1 to 1 1I 3 standard deviations above the test's mean of 100. Typically, one would expect intellec-tually gifted children to score higher. However, lower than expected scores are not unusual in studies of gifted children with new tests (e.g., see Volker & Phelps [2004] regarding the WISC-IV and Roid [2003, pp. 96-97] regarding the SB5). A variety of factors may explain this result for the KABC-11, including regression to the mean upon being tested for a second time and the inclusion in the sample of numerous children who were selected based on nonintellective factors (e.g., artistic and leadership qualities, as noted in the manual). Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 115

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

1he gifted sample scored highest on the FO (M = 120.1) compared to mean scores of 118.7 for the MPI and 116.8 for the NVI. Among the factor composites or scales, Knowledge/Gc was the highest (M = 118.4), which led to the slightly higher score on the FO than MPI. 1he other KABC-11 factor composite scores were very similar to each other with a mean of 114.1 for Simultaneous/ Gv, 113.5 for Sequential/ Gsm, 113.4 for Planning/Gf, and 113.3 for Learning/Glr. Taken together, these results support use of the CHC model, which includes the Knowledge I Gc scale, when testing most intellectual gifted children. However, this support is predicated on the absence of cultural, linguistic, or disability factors that would make use of the Knowledge/Gc scale inappropriate. Overall, given the limitations of this one sample of gifted children with the KABC-11, further research on the instrument with this population is recommended to clarify its utility.

against its inclusion in a special composite score for gifted children (Roid & Barram, 2004). However, Rizza, Mcintosh, and McCunn (2001), in examining a sample of 51 high scoring children on the WJ III compared to matched controls, found that Gsm was their highest mean score out of the seven CHC factors for the gifted sample. In the KABC-11 gifted study reported in the manual, the Gsm factor did not stand out either in a high or low manner. It is difficult to explain this divergent set of results. However, there were clear differences how the samples were selected across these studies and there are always possible differences in the content across tests. As previously mentioned, one fairly consistent finding is that of low scores in the domain of Gs for gifted samples. Taking these findings together, further research will be required to clarify whether there are typical CHC profiles for intellectually gifted children.

Implications of KABC-Il Results and Findings

Concluding Comments

from other Tests. Patterns of performance with gifted students across CHC abilities vary across different tests of intelligence. For example, like the KABC-11, on the WISC-Iv, Gc abilities seem to be the strongest for gifted samples, as indicated by the high mean score on the Verbal Comprehension Index (The Psychological Corporation, 2004; Sparrow, Pfeiffer, & Newman, 2005). A combination of Gv and Gf were the next highest abilities for the WISC-IV's gifted sample (as measured by the Perceptual Reasoning Index), but on the KABC-11, the gifted sample's Gv and Gf were virtually identical to Gsm. However, the information regarding Gsm with intellectually gifted children is not consistent. Roid (2003) reported that Gsm was an area of relative weakness for gifted students on the SBS and recommended

Those who administer and interpret intelligence tests as part of the gifted identification process must do with the following issues in mind: (a) the intelligence tests selected should have strong psychometric properties for the population involved (e.g., high reliability, strong construct validity, appropriately high test ceilings, etc.); (b) intelligence tests should be selected, administered, and interpreted with sensitivity to the child's cultural and linguistic background (Kaufman & Harrison, 1986; Pfeiffer, 2001, 2002), emotional needs (Pfeiffer, 2002), and disability status (McCoach, Kehle, Bray, & Siegle, 2001); (c) score interpretations should take into account errors in measurement (Kaufman & Harrison, 1986); (d) examiners should be sensitive to variability in the score profiles or expressions of intelligence in children that

116, Gifted Education International Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

may render composite scores less interpretable (Hale & Fiorello, 2001; Kaufman, 1993; Sparrow & Gurland, 1998); and (e) intelligence tests vary in their emphasis on speed of performance, which should be taken into account when assessing more reflective children (Kaufman, 1994). The KABC-11 addresses each of the above issues: (a) it has strong psychometric properties, including reliability, validi~ and appropriately high ceilings; (b) it is sensitive to cultural and linguistic differences and minimizes the effect of these differences; (c) its dual theoretical base and qualitative indicators help in the interpretation of the results; (d) its five scales allow for interpretation of profiles that have significant variability; and (e) its minimal emphasis on speed of performance is a plus when assessing high-functioning children with reflective styles of responding. Thus, when used as part of a multi-dimensional battery for assessing giftedness, the strengths of the KABC-11 make it a useful tool in measuring the cognitive abilities of intellectually high functioning children. An example of how the KABC-11 can be utilized in a gifted assessment is shown in the case study that follows.

Gifted Case Study Student Name: Ophelia T. Age: 8-years, 6-months Grade: Third Examiner: Elizabeth 0. Lichtenberger, Ph.D. Referral and Background Information Ophelia has demonstrated exceptional achievement in most academic domains during second and third grade. Thus, her third grade teacher recommended to Mr. and Mrs. T that Ophelia be referred to the Gifted

and Talented Education (GATE) program that their school district offers high achieving children. However, Mr. and Mrs. T wanted a complete assessment of Ophelia's cognitive abilities, to determine whether such a placement would, indeed, be beneficial for Ophelia. According to her parents, Ophelia has demonstrated the tendency to "perseverate on school-work problems that are difficult for her, and cannot be encouraged to move on." Mr. and Mrs. T want Ophelia to be appropriately challenged with her academic curriculum, but do not want to place her in a situation that will unduly frustrate her. Thus, they would like recommendations on how to guide her through her academic career in a manner that will be the most beneficial. Ophelia is the older of two children in her family. Her younger sister, Sophia, is 4 years her junior. Ophelia's mother works full-time as a nurse and her father works full-time as a software engineer. According to her mother, Ophelia was born after an uncomplicated full-term pregnancy. Mrs. T indicated that Ophelia's early developmental milestones were met at a normal rate. Ophelia's medical history is relatively unremarkable. She has not had any major injuries or serious illnesses. Her hearing and vision are within normal limits, and there were no reported problems at her last complete physical. Ophelia's educational history began in preschool at the age of 4. She entered kindergarten just before her fifth birthday, and by the end of kindergarten, Ophelia was able to read independently, spell well, and perform basic mathematical computations easily. Ophelia is now in third grade at the local public elementary school. Her school reports indicated that Ophelia is a good student, achieving at "above grade level". Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 117

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

Socially, Ophelia seems to be "easy going," according to Mrs. T. Ophelia has many close friends and also easily interacts with adults. According to her parents, Ophelia has numerous strengths. She is emotionally intuitive and makes friends easily. She uses her strong verbal communication skills well in social situations at home, at school, and with friends. Problem solving in real life situations seems to come naturally for Ophelia. She is also artistic, good at organizing, and a good story writer.

Appearance and Behavioral Characteristics Ophelia is a cute 8-year-old girl of average height and weight. She has short brown hair and blue eyes. During the evaluation, Ophelia easily established and maintained rapport with the examiner. She spoke freely about her day at school and expressed curiosity about the tasks that would be presented. Ophelia's verbose nature was evident throughout each of the tasks. Whether she was asked a question that required a verbal response or was given a problem that required a nonverbal response, she talked as she processed each problem at hand. In fact, Ophelia's talkative nature prolonged the length of the testing session beyond the range that is typical for a child her age. On nonverbal tasks, such as copying models with triangles and determining the correct order of a set of pictures, Ophelia used verbal mediation to work through the problems. For example, as she manipulated triangles to match a model, she said, "Those two triangles make a trapezoid .. .lt's like my puzzle book." As she examined pictures on another task (that requires a simple pointing response), she said, "This doesn't go with that because that piece won't complete the pattern, but these could go together because

the half light and half dark make sense. However, this one isn't really the best option either, but this one is almost perfect, except it is missing the shading. So, I guess that just leaves these two that go together they work together perfectly". Thus, Ophelia's verbal nature appeared to aid her in solving nonverbal problems. Ophelia was quite concerned with the accuracy of her performance throughout the assessment. Her concern was evident as she repeatedly asked, "Is that right?" When Ophelia was uncertain about the correctness of verbal responses, she examined the examiner's facial expression for reassurance and then she would ask if she could rethink her response in an apparent effort to ensure accuracy. Although the examiner could not give her information about the correctness of her response, Ophelia appeared comforted by the examiner's praise for her efforts. In light of Ophelia's level of attention, concentration, and efforts to do her best on each task, the results of this evaluation are considered a valid estimate of her current level of cognitive and academic functioning.

Tests Administered and Data Collected Background History from Mrs. T Kaufman Assessment Battery for ChildrenSecond Edition (KABC-11)

Kaufman Test of Educational AchievementSecond Edition (KTEA-11) - Brief Form.

Test Results and Interpretation Assessment of Cognitive Abilities Ophelia was administered the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (KABC-11) to obtain a comprehensive picture of her mental processing and cognitive abilities. The KABC-11 is based on a

118, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

double theoretical foundation, Luria's neuropsychological model and the CattellHorn-Carroll (CHC) psychometric theory. It offers five scales, each given a label that reflects both theoretical models: Sequential/ Gsm, Simultaneous I Gv, Learning I Glr, Planning I Gf, and Knowledge I Gc. (From the perspective of CHC theory, Gsm = shortterm memory; Gv = visual processing; Glr = long-term storage & retrieval; Gf = fluid reasoning; and Gc =crystallized ability.) Examiners are given the option of selecting either the Luria model or the CHC model of the KABC-II, based on the child's background and the reason for referral. (Knowledge/Gc is excluded from the Luria model because measures of language ability and acquired knowledge may not provide fair assessment of some children's cognitive abilities-e.g., those from bilingual or nonmainstream backgrounds). English is the only language spoken in the T' s household, and the CHC model is preferred when assessing children who are potentially gifted. Thus, the CHC model of the KABC-11 was administered to Ophelia, which yields the FCI as the global measure of general cognitive ability. Ophelia earned a KABC-11 Fluid Crystallized Index (FCI) of 126, ranking her at the 96th percentile and classifying her overall mental processing ability as falling within the Above Average to Upper Extreme range of cognitive functioning. The chances are 90% that her "true" FCI is between 120 and 132. However, she displayed considerable variability in her standard scores on the five theory-based scales that compose the FCI with Indexes ranging from 97 on Sequential I Gsm to 149 on Planning I Gf. This wide variation in Indexes (52 points, which equals nearly 3.5 SDs), renders her FCI meaningless as an estimate of global ability; it is merely the mid-point of

greatly varying abilities. Unlike the FCI, all five of Ophelia's Scale Indexes were interpretable, as she performed consistently on the tasks that compose each separate scale. Ophelia's Planning/Gf Index of 149 (>99.9th percentile) is in the Upper Extreme range of cognitive functioning and is a Normative Strength for her (relative to other 8-year-olds). Both her Simultaneous/Gv Index of 119 (90th percentile) and her Knowledge I Gc Index of 120 (91st percentile) are in the Above Average range and are also Normative Strengths. Her other two Indexes, which range from 97 to 111, are within the Average Range. Ophelia's fluid reasoning and planning ability are important strengths for her; they are Key Assets. These strong abilities were evident from Ophelia's performance in the Upper Extreme Range on the Planning/Gf scale. Her score was significantly higher than her own Average level of cognitive ability, and her score of 149 was so much higher than her Average overall ability that differences that large occurred less than 1% of the time in the standardization sample. On one planning task requiring Ophelia to examine a set of pictures to determine which pictures are needed to complete a logical story, she did not make any errors, and appeared to complete the task effortlessly. Ophelia's relative strength in this domain was corroborated by teacher and parent reports of her skills. Her teachers have indicated that Ophelia has strong problem solving skills and has the ability to use these skills to help her solve types of problems that she has never seen before (i.e., novel problems). Likewise, Ophelia's parents reported that she has strong problem solving skills in "real life" situations. Though

not

personal

strengths

Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 119

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

(compared to her own mean level of ability) like Ophelia's fluid reasoning and planning ability, her visual processing and acquired knowledge of words and facts (crystallized ability) are Normative Strengths compared to other children her age. Her Above Average visual processing was evident on tasks that required her to recreate an abstract design with rubber triangles (95th percentile) or move a toy dog across a gridpattern to find the shortest path from one point to another (63rd). Similarly, Ophelia's range of general factual information and of words is also a normative strength, which is consistent with her above average performance at school. Ophelia appeared to utilize her strong reasoning abilities to help her on one of the tasks of knowledge. For example, on some challenging items, when shown an array of six pictures and Ophelia had to point to which one illustrated the meaning of a vocabulary word or a general fact, she used her strong reasoning ability to deduce which were not the correct responses, thereby leaving her with the correct answer (resulting in a score at the 95th percentile). In contrast to her key assets of reasoning and planning (as well as her above average visual processing and knowledge of words and facts), her short term and long term memory skills were personal weaknesses for Ophelia-although they were still within the Average range compared to other children her age. The types of tasks measuring Ophelia's short term memory included repeating a list of two to ten numbers that the examiner said (50th percentile) or remembering a list of words that the examiner said and then pointing to a picture of those words in the order that they were said (37th percentile). Her long term memory skills were evident in tasks that required her to learn the name of a fish, plant, or shell and point to the appropriate

picture when named (63rd percentile). Another task of long term memory required her to learn a word or concept associated with a symbol, and then she had to "read" the phrases composed of these symbols (84th percentile).

Assessment of Academic Achievement Ophelia was administered the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Second Edition (KTEA-ll) Brief Form, which is an individually administered test of academic achievement, to measure her skills in reading, math, and written language. Her standard scores on the KTEA-11 Brief Form composites (based on age norms) were fairly consistent, rendering her Brief Achievement Composite of 135 (99th percentile) a meaningful and accurate representation of her overall level of academic achievement. There is a 90% chance that her true Brief Achievement Composite falls with in the range of 131-139. She scored within the Above Average range on Reading (standard score = 123, 94th percentile), but scored at the juncture of the Above Average and Upper Extreme levels on Written Language (standard score = 129, 97th percentile). On Math, she scored in the Upper Extreme level (standard score = 134, 99th percentile). Her skills in reading, math, and writing are all Normative Strengths for her, compared to other children her age. Although Ophelia's performance in Math was significantly higher than in Reading, such a difference between these two academic domains is not infrequent in children her age. It was clear that her strong reasoning and planning abilities helped her achieve such a high level on the test of mathematical skill. Typically, if Ophelia was unsure of how to solve a problem, she would use deductive reasoning to determine how

120, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

that problem may be similar to another type of math problem that she had done before. Using such a strate~m she often correctly reasoned her way to an accurate response. She employed similar reasoning strategies in answering comprehension-type questions on the Reading subtest. That is, if she didn't know what one or more words meant in a paragraph, then she would either rule out which responses to a question were most likely to be incorrect or she would try to deduce the meaning of the unknown words from the words that she did know. A comparison of Ophelia's cognitive skills and academic skills indicates that her level of academic achievement (ranging from Above Average to Upper Extreme) is commensurate with her pattern of cognitive abilities (ranging from Average to Upper Extreme). She appeared equally motivated to work on cognitive tasks and more specific academic tasks, and used a highly verbal approach to problem solving on most tasks. Thus, the results of both types of tests indicate that Ophelia uses her cognitive strengths to help her achieve academically.

Summary and Diagnostic Impressions Ophelia T is an 8 112-year-old girl who was assessed to determine whether placement in the GATE program would be beneficial. Mr. and Mrs. T. wanted an evaluation of her cognitive strengths and weaknesses in order to ascertain how she can best reach her full academic potential. Ophelia's parents provided information about Ophelia's background. She was the product of an uncomplicated pregnancy and normal csection delivery. Her physical and psychosocial development has been normal and she has a relatively unremarkable medical history. Academically, Ophelia's achievement has been above grade level in

both second and third grade. She has no reported social or psychological difficulties. Although Mr. and Mrs. T struggle with Ophelia's inflexibility, overall, Ophelia presents with no major behavioral problems. One of the most notable aspects of Ophelia's behavior during the evaluation was her highly verbal nature. She used verbal mediation on nonverbal problems and responded with excess verbiage to verbal problems. Ophelia showed great concern about the accuracy of her performance and desired much feedback from the examiner. Her approach to most problems was methodical and careful, rather than speedy. She was focused and attentive throughout the evaluation. Ophelia's cognitive abilities (measured by the KABC-11) were highly variable, ranging from the Average range on short term and long term memory to the Above Average range on visual processing and acquired knowledge to the Upper Extreme range on fluid reasoning and planning. Thus, her scores on the individual KABC-11 scales were more meaningful that the overall FCI index standard score of 126. Her performance on the Planning/ Gf scale (earning a score of 149; >99.9 percentile) was a Key Asset for her. She used her very strong reasoning and planning skills to achieve in the Above Average to Upper Extreme range of academic functioning on the KTEA-11 Brief. She showed equally well developed abilities in the domains of Reading (94th percentile), Math (99th percentile), and Writing (97th percentile). Ophelia's strong academic skills are also commensurate with her strengths in areas of her intellectual functioning. Ophelia's strengths in reasoning ability coupled with her high level of academic achievement do make her a good candidate for the GATE program. She readily uses her Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 121

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

strong reasoning ability to solve new problems and seems to enjoy such challenges. Although her parents have expressed concern that she sometimes perseverates on difficult problems and doesn't want to move on, this problem does not appear to be a significant one in the school setting. The environment that the GATE program provides fosters children's cognitive strengths and provides oppor-tunities for them to develop these strengths even more. Thus, in Ophelia's case, the teacher's referral to the GATE program appears to be an advantageous recommendation.

much reassurance and feedback about her performance. Balance giving her needed feedback with teaching her to evaluate her own performance. For example, when working on subtraction problems, teach her how to check her own work by adding. When reading, teach her how to use the context of a sentence to ensure that the word she is trying to read makes sense. A Psychometric Summary for Ophelia is attached.

References Recommendations 1.) Because of the positive environment and appropriately challenging curriculum that the GATE program can provide, it is recommended that Mr. and Mrs. T follow the teacher's recommendation to refer Ophelia to the GATE program. This program will allow Ohelia' s strong reasoning abilities to flourish and help develop her confidence to attempt new challenges. 2.) Ophelia's strength in novel problem solving and reasoning will benefit her in many areas-academic and social. Encourage her to further develop this strength by using problem solving strategies that are generalizable to a variety of situations. Include the following steps: (a) Decide what the problem is and what the best outcome would be; (b) Brainstorm possible solutions; (c) Consider which solutions are feasible; (d) Consider the positive and negative outcomes of each solution; (e) Choose the solution that seems best; (f) Try it; (g) Ask if it is working; (h) Modify it or select a different solution if the strategy does not work. 3.) Ophelia is an intelligent girl who seeks

Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging Generality and Specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) Model of Creativity. Roeper Review, 27, 158-163. Burks, B. S., Jensen, D. W., & Terman, L. M. (1930).

Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 3. The promise of youth: Follow-up studies of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Callahan, C. M. (2000). Intelligence and giftedness. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 159-175). New York: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Cattell, R. B. (1941). Some theoretical issues in adult intelligence testing. Psychological Bulletin, 38,592. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1-22. Coleman, L. J., & Cross, T. L. (2001). Being gifted in

school. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press. Das, J. P., Naglieri, J. A., & Kirby, J. R. (1994).

Assessment of cognitive processes: The PASS theory of intelligence. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

122, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

PSYCHOMETRIC SUMMARY FOR OPHELIA

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition (KABC-11) CHC MODEL Standard Score (mean = 100; SD = 15)

90% Confidence Interval

Percentile Rank

Sequential/Gsm Number Recall Word Order

97 10 9

[87-107]

42 50 37

Simultaneous/Gv Rover Triangles

119 11 15

[108-128]

90 63 95

Leaming/Glr Atlantis Rebus

111 11 13

[103-119]

77 63 84

Planning/Gf Story Completion Pattern Reasoning

149 19 15

[139-155]

>99.9 99.9 95

Knowledge/Gc Verbal Knowledge Riddles

120 15 12

[110-128]

91 95 75

Fluid Crystallized Index (FC Supplementary Scale Delayed Recall Atlantis Delay Rebus Delay

126

[120-132]

96

115 12 13

---

84

Scale

75 84

Note: Italicized Subtests are supplementary and not included in the calculation of the Indexes.

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Second Edition (KTEA-II) Brief Form Standard Score

90% Confidence Interval

Percentile Rank

Reading Math Writing

123 129

118-128 127-141 122-136

94 99 97

Brief Achievement Composite

135

131~139

99

Composites and Subtests

134

Note: Standard scores are based on age norms Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 123

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

Davis, G.A., & Rimm, S.B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

· intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 53-91). New York: The Guilford Press. Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Gallagher, J. J. (1994). Current and historical thinking on education for gifted and talented students. In P. Ross (Ed.), National excellence: An anthology of readings (pp. 83-107). Washington, DC: U.S. Deparbnent of Education.

Kaufman, A. S., & Harrison, P. L. (1986). Intelligence tests and gifted assessment: What are the positives? Roeper Review, 8, 154-159.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). Circle

Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory into practice. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (1998). Are there additional intelligences? The case for naturalist, spiritual, and existential intelligences. In J. Kane (Ed.), Education, information, and transformation (pp. 111131). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004a). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: Second Edition (KABC-II). Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004b).

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Comprehensive Form: Second Edition (KTEA-Il).

Gridley, B. E., Norman, K. A., Rizza, M. G., & Decker, S. L. (2003). Assessment of gifted children with the Woodcock-Johnson III. In F.A. Schrank & D.P. Flanagan (Eds.), WJ III clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 285-317). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004c). Manual for the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: Second Edition (KABC-II). Circle Pines, MN: AGS

Gross, M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London: Routledge.

Kaufman, A. S., Lichtenberger, E. 0., PletcherJanzen, E., Kaufman, N. L. (2005). Essentials of KABC-II assessment. New York: Wiley.

Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2001). Beyond the academic rhetoric of "g": Intelligence testing guidelines for practitioners. The School Psychologist, 55(4), 113-117, 131-135, 138-139.

Luria, A. R. (1966). Human brain and psychological processes. New York: Harper & Row.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ, Stanford-Binet origin and development. Yonkers, NY: World Book. Horn, J. L. (1985). Remodeling old models of intelligence. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 267-300). New York: Wiley. Horn, J. L. (1998). A basis for research on age differences in cognitive capabilities. In J.J. McArdle & R.W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human cognitive abilities in theory and practice (pp. 57-87). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Horn, J. L., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive capabilities: Gf-Gc theory. In D.P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.). Contemporary

Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.

Publishing.

Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books. Luria, A. R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in man (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented, Vol. 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Siegle, D. (2001). Best practices in the identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 403-411.

124, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence test batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D.P. Flanagan_ J.L. Genshaft, & P.L. Harrison (Eds.). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151-179). New York: The Guilford Press. McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Hom-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In D.P. Flanagan, & P.L. Harrison (Eds.). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed.) (pp. 136-181). New York: The Guilford Press. Naglieri, J. A. (1989). A cognitive processing theory for the measurement of intelligence. Educational Psychologist, 24, 185-206. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1988). PlanningArousal-Simultaneous-Successive (PASS): A model for assessment. Journal of School Psychology, 26,35-48. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997a). Cognitive Assessment System (CAS). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997b). Cognitive Assessment System interpretive handbook. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Naglieri, J. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2001). Understanding intelligence, giftedness, and creativity using the PASS theory. Roeper Review, 23(3), 151-156. Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development, 15, 1-12.

Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R.J. Sternberg & E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 332-357). New York: Cambridge Press. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S.M. (1991). The schoolwide enrichment model: A comprehensive plan for the development of creative productivity. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 99-110). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: New directions for developing high-end learning. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education-2nd ed. (pp. 136-154). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Richert, E. S. (1997). Excellence with equity in identification and programming. InN. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook ofgifted education2nd ed. (pp. 75-88). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Robinson, N. M., & Chamrad, D. L. (1986). Appropriate uses of intelligence tests with gifted children. Roeper Review, 8, 160-163. Sattler, J. M. (1992). Assessment of children: Revised and updated third edition (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Author. Simpson, M., Carone, D. A. Jr., Bums, W. J., Seidman, T., Montgomery, D., & Sellers, A. (2002). Assessing giftedness with the WISC-ill and the SB-IY. Psychology in the Schools, 29(5), 515-524.

Pfeiffer, S. L. (2001). Professional psychology and the gifted: Emerging practice opportunities. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 32(2), 175-180.

Sparrow; S. S., & Gurland, S. T. (1998). Assessment of gifted children with the WISC-ill. In A. Prifitera & D. Saklofske (Eds.), WISC-III clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 59-72). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Pfeiffer, S. L. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 31-50.

Spearman, C. (1904). "General Intelligence" objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15,201-293.

Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (1997). Giftedness from a multiple intelligences perspective. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education-2nd ed. (pp. 54-66). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Volume 21 No 2/3, 2006, 125

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012

Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1997a). A triarchic view of giftedness: Theory and practice. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook ofgifted education2nd ed. (pp. 43-53). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &Bacon. Sternberg, R. J. (1997b). The triarchic theory of intelligence. In D.P. Flanagan, J.L. Genshaft, & P.L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 92-104). New York: Guilford Press. Sternberg, R. J. (1997c). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume. Sternberg, R .J. (2003). A broad view of intelligence: The theory of successful intelligence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55(3), 139-154. Sternberg, R. J., & Detterman, D. K. (Eds.). (1986). What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Stephens, K. R., & Kames, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented revisited. Exceptional Children, 66, 219-238.

Terman, L. S., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 5. The gifted group at mid-life: Thirty-five years' follow-up of a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition, technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Roid, G. H., & Barram, R. A. (2004). Essentials of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Ross, P. 0. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved May 29, 2005, from http:/ /www.ed.gov/pubs/Dev/ Talent/ intro.htrnl. U.S. Congress. (1978). Educational amendment of 1978 (P.L. 95-561). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Congress. (1988). Jacob K. Javits gifted and talented students education act of 1988 (P.L. 100-297). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (1998). Human abilities. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 479-502.

Volker, M. A., & Phelps, L. (2004). Identification of gifted students with the WISC-IV. In D.P. Flanagan & A.S. Kaufman (Eds.), Essentials of WISC-IV assessment-Chapter Seven (pp. 216-224).

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1996). The IQ controversy and the gifted. In C. Benbow & D. Lubinski (Eds.), Intellectual talent (pp. 44-77). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISCIII). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1997). The meaning and making of giftedness. InN. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education-2nd ed. (pp. 27-42). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Westberg, K. L., Archambault, F. X., Dobyns, S. M., & Salvin, T. (1993). The classroom practices observational study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 120-146.

Terman, L. S. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Winner, E. (1997). Exceptionally high intelligence and schooling. American Psychologist, 52(10), 10701081.

Terman, L. S., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4. The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

126, Gifted Education International

Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com by guest on March 29, 2012