Identifying Gifted Students From Underrepresented Populations

By Carolyn M. Callahan. 2005

144 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9be2fad8f21bb89077d7818512706bac809c0aab

How researchers see this paper

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

In Demography

1. Shelagh A. Gallagher
2. Jaret Hodges
3. Juliana Tay
4. Yukiko Maeda
5. Marcia Gentry
6. J. Gallagher

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Jaret Hodges
2. Juliana Tay
3. Yukiko Maeda
4. Shelagh A. Gallagher
5. Nancy L. Leech
6. Margarita Bianco
7. Marcia Gentry
8. J. Gallagher

In Social Psychology

1. Nancy L. Leech
2. Dorothy F. Garrison-Wade
3. Bryn Harris
4. Shelagh A. Gallagher
5. Yukiko Maeda
6. Marcia Gentry
7. J. Gallagher

Citations in the corpus

• Gifted Girls: Gender Bias in Gifted Referrals (2011, background): “For example, the most frequently cited reason for homogeneous populations in gifted services is the use of a single criterion or reliance on IQ tests for admittance to gifted programming (Callahan, 2005).”
• Using Problem-based Learning to Explore Unseen Academic Potential (2013, background): “, 1993; Westberg, Archambault, & Brown, 1997; Whitton, 1997), partly because they don’t believe they have any advanced students (Callahan, 2005).”
• A Meta-Analysis of Gifted and Talented Identification Practices (2018, background): “For example, how to identify, what to identify, and when to identify are some of the questions that plague the field (Callahan, 2005; Erwin & Worrell, 2012; Feldhusen & Jarwan, 2000; McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012; McKenzie, 1986; Passow & Frasier, 1994).”