![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Card and Giuliano’s National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper on universal screening is discussed. This commentary provides a brief summary and critique of the article, proposes an explanation of the results in light of the author’s research on the role of nominations or screening tests in the gifted identification process, and discusses the methodological implications of this work for the field.
Keywords gifted, identification, elementary, quantitative, quasi-experimental
References
Section:
|
Card, D., Giuliano, L. (2015, September). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? (Working Paper No. 21519). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w21519.pdf Google Scholar | |
|
Jensen, A. (1980). Bias in mental testing. London, England: Matheun. Google Scholar | |
|
Jost, J. T., Rudman, L. A., Blair, I. V., Carney, D. R., Dasgupta, N., Glaser, J., Hardin, C. D. (2009). The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 39-69. doi:10.1016/j.riod.2009 Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
McBee, M. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103-111. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
McBee, M., Peters, S., Miller, E. M. (in press). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Miller, E. M. (2009). The effect of training in gifted education on elementary classroom teachers’ theory-based reasoning about the concept of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(1), 65-105. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Peters, S. J. (2014, July 10). The bright vs. gifted comparison: A distraction from what matters [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.creativitypost.com/education/the_bright_vs._gifted_comparison_a_distraction_from_what_matters Google Scholar | |
|
Peters, S. J. (2016). The bright vs. gifted comparison: A distraction from what matters. Gifted Child Today, 39, 125-127. doi:10.1177/1076217516628917 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Siegle, D., Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 21-29. doi:10.1177/001698620404800103 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Walton, G. M., Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132-1139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Warne, R. T., Yoon, M., Price, C. J. (2014). Exploring the various meanings of “test bias”. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 570-582. doi:10.1037/a0036503 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline |
