Addressing Underrepresentation of Gifted Minority Children Using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT)

By J. Naglieri, D. Ford. 2003

257 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fd91069c58c8bea0638295d0c8f3b006219d2bf6

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

Minority Achievement Gaps in STEM (2017, methodology): “…process because there was some earlier evidence supporting its use as a more appropriate measure of general ability (e.g., Naglieri & Ronning, 2000) that would be at least as effective as other ability tests that contain both verbal and nonverbal components (e.g., Naglieri & Ford, 2003).”
A Meta-Analysis of Gifted and Talented Identification Practices (2018, methodology): “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).”
Increasing Minority Children’s Participation in Gifted Classes Using the NNAT: A Response to Lohman (2005, methodology): “This logic is contradicted by the data provided by Naglieri (1985) for an earlier version of the test, by Naglieri and Ronning (2000), and by the data we reported (Naglieri & Ford, 2003).”
The Role of Nonverbal Ability Tests in Identifying Academically Gifted Students: An Aptitude Perspective (2005, methodology): “For example, Naglieri and Ford (2003) advocated the use of Naglieri’s (1997) group-administered figural reasoning test for identifying academically gifted students.”
Research on Giftedness and Gifted Education (2014, background): “Exceptional Children 397 within gifted populations, but weaker in others, such as the efficacy of specific interventions to help high-potential students deal with specific social and emotional issues. For example, in a recent review, Wiley and Hébert (2014) concluded asynchrony (the degree to which ”
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.”
The Challenges of Achieving Equity Within Public School Gifted and Talented Programs (2021, background): “Examples of such efforts include a push to use nonverbal tests (e.g., Naglieri & Ford, 2003) and wider use of teacher rating scales (Hunsaker, 1994; Peterson, 1999) as well as performance-based identification systems (e.g., Teacher Observation of Potential in Students; Harradine et al., 2014).”
Assessment Practices and the Underrepresentation of Minority Students in Gifted and Talented Education (2012, background): “In support of the nonverbal test option, Naglieri and Ford (2003) reported that minorities and European American samples had similar scores on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT; Naglieri, 1997), including at the upper end of the distribution which is used to identify students for GATE…”
Identifying Academically Gifted English-Language Learners Using Nonverbal Tests (2008, background): “Nevertheless, Naglieri (2007) asserts that the Naglieri and Ford (2003) paper is one of the most important studies on the NNAT.”
Best Practices in Identifying Students for Gifted and Talented Education Programs (2011, background): “Nonverbal measures of cognitive ability have garnered attention as they have been described as culture-fair and thus more equitable for culturally or linguistically diverse populations (eg, Naglieri & Ford, 2003 ).”
Equity and Excellence (2016, methodology): “Under the “use different tests” perspective, “culture-neutral” or “bias-free” tests and assessment methods are recommended for identification, with authors such as Naglieri and Ford (2003, 2005, 2015) contending that this approach would help eliminate underrepresentation.”
A Descriptive Analysis of Referral Sources for Gifted Identification Screening by Race and Socioeconomic Status (2006, background): “…underrepresented in programs for the gifted, including assessment schemes based on dynamic assessment (Kirschenbaum, 2004), nonverbal ability tests (Naglieri & Ford, 2003), Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences (Sarouphim, 1999), compensatory policies such as lowering IQ cutoff…”