Increasing Minority Children’s Participation in Gifted Classes Using the NNAT: A Response to Lohman

By J. Naglieri, D. Ford. 2005

114 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/65a43b1b235d3f5227885aeb7a65aababeacd824

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Fourth-Grade Teachers' Perceptions of Giftedness: Implications for Identifying and Serving Diverse Gifted Students (2007, background): “…are underrepresented in gifted programs, the problem remains unresolved, a concern that has been well established in the literature in gifted education (Boothe & Stanley, 2004; Daniels, 1998; Ford & Harris, 1994; Frasier, 1997; Morris, 2002; Naglieri & Ford, 2005; National Research Council, 2002).”
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Gifted Education: Recruitment and Retention Issues (2008, background): “These tests are considered less culturally loaded than traditional tests (see Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001; Kaufman, 1994; Naglieri & Ford, 2003, 2005; Saccuzzo et al., 1994) and thus hold promise for more effectively assessing the cognitive strengths of CLD students.”
Equity and Excellence (2016, methodology): “In previous research, Peters and Gentry (2012) demonstrated that the application of group-specific norms does in fact increase the representation of low-income students in a gifted program regardless of how giftedness was operationalized (whether those in need of the intervention included the top 25”
A Meta-Analysis of Gifted and Talented Identification Practices (2018, background): “However, the processes for identifying gifted students have often been contentious (Giessman, Gambrell, & Stebbins, 2013; Lakin & Lohman, 2011; Lee & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2006; Lohman, 2005; Lohman, Korb, & Lakin, 2008; Naglieri & Ford, 2003, 2005; Renzulli & Reis, 2012).”
Research on Giftedness and Gifted Education (2014, background): “These findings have led to a somewhat fierce debate about whether nonverbal intelligence tests find smaller group differences than verbal tests (e.g., Lohman, 2005; Naglieri & Ford, 2003, 2005).”
The Role of Nonverbal Ability Tests in Identifying Academically Gifted Students: An Aptitude Perspective (2005, background): “However, Naglieri and Ford (2005) were particularly critical of the CogAT Sentence Completion subtest.”