The construct (or concept) of intelligence and the development of tests to assess it have a long and varied history. The first applied intelligence tests consisted of unidimensional static measures of general intelligence (g) (Kaufman, 2009), and the first practical measure of intelligence was published by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon in 1905. The intent of Binet's test was to differentiate between retarded (intellectually disabled) and normal school children. Early intelligence tests were also used to identify individuals who were gifted and talented (e.g., Hollingsworth, 1926;Terman, 1925). Following the development of early g-based intelligence tests, a lengthy period of time elapsed during which intelligence test development was prominent and psychometrically driven research on the structure of intelligence was extensive. These activities have culminated in today's multidimensional intelligence tests (see Kaufman, 2009, for a historical overview).More specific to the field of school psychology, measures of intelligence have traditionally been considered to be a necessary component (i.e., ability-achievement discrepancy) in the identification of children with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) as prescribed by P.L. 94-142 (Flanagan & Harrison, 2005) and intellectual disabilities (IDs). Recent changes in SLD criteria in the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have significantly impacted the practice of intelligence testing-to the point that the efficacy of intelligence testing is now being questioned (Dombrowski, Kamphaus, & Reynolds, 2004;Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004;Fletcher & Reschly, 2005;Gresham, Restori, & Cook, 2008). In particular, the recent emphasis on Response to Intervention (RTI) as a potential method of determining SLD eligibility has led to serious questions about the usefulness, necessity, empirical support, and efficacy of individualized intelligence or cognitive ability testing within educational settings.It is within this context that the focus of the current special issue was developed. The purpose of this issue is to "take stock" of the usefulness of intelligence theory and testing within the emerging new special education landscape, with a particular focus on the contribution of the contemporary Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities. SHIFTING SANDS: THE CHANGING ASSESSMENT LANDSCAPEThe IDEA-driven RTI movement has significantly impacted the field of school psychology. This impact is evident from increased examination in school psychology literature of alternative measurement approaches (e.g., curriculum-based measures and progress-monitoring tools) and/or lack of response to intervention for special education eligibility (Glover & DiPerna, 2007;Reschly, 2005;Shinn, 2007). Some authors (Dehn, 2008;Hale, Kaufman, Naglieri, & Kavale, 2006;Mather & Gregg, 2006;Naglieri & Kaufman, 2008;Witsken, Stoeckel, & D'Amato, 2008) have advocated, however, for the continued use of intelligence tests within the RTI framework to ...

This study examined the accuracy of three shortened measures of intelligence: the WoodcockJohnson Tests of Cognitive Ability, Third Edition Brief Intellectual Ability (WJ III COG BIA) score; the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition Abbreviated IQ (SB5 ABIQ); and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test IQ Composite (K-BIT) in predicting giftedness as assessed by the SB5 Full Scale IQ score (SB5 FSIQ). Participants were 202 third grade students who were individually administered the SB5, WJ III, and K-BIT. Four scores (SB5 ABIQ, K-BIT, WJ III COG BIA, and SB5 FSIQ) were extracted. Correlational analyses revealed positive, significant relationships among the four scores. Discriminant function analyses, conducted to examine the accuracy of the three shortened measures of intelligence in predicting giftedness, revealed that overall, the WJ III score was the most accurate, and the K-BIT score was the least accurate in identifying giftedness. C 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

This study was conducted to determine if genderrole conceptualizations in adolescent girls were related to their global self-worth and several dimensions of their body image. Self-report surveys were administered to 335 predominantly Caucasian Grade 12 girls from religiouslybased high schools in the midwestern part of the United States. It was hypothesized that adolescent females' gendertyping of themselves as well as their gender-related attitudes towards others would be significantly, and possibly divergently, related to their perceptions of themselves and their physical bodies. Obtained data were analyzed using multivariate canonical correlation procedures. The results of these analyses revealed support for the predicted overall relationship between gender conceptualizations and self-perceptions, but also indicated some differences in the way in which the two dimensions of gender-role conceptualizations (personal and attitudes towards others) were associated with adolescents' perceptions of themselves. Specifically, girls exhibiting more egalitarian gender-related attitudes towards others scored higher on global self-worth and lower in body appearance orientation. In addition, higher self-endorsement on the masculine subscales was linked with higher global self-worth, lower social physique anxiety, and higher use of competence to evaluate the physical body. In contrast, high self-endorsement on the feminine subscales exhibited mixed links to the set of selfperceptual variables.

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition (SB5), is a recently published, multidimensional measure of intelligence based on Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory. The author of the test provides results from confirmatory factor analyses in the technical manual supporting the five-factor structure of the instrument. Other authors have examined this factor structure through EFA using the standardization sample, and have not found evidence of a five-factor model. The purpose of the current study was to examine the internal construct validity of the SB5 using an independent sample of high-functioning students. Participants included 201 high-functioning, third-grade students ranging in age from 8 years, 4 months to 10 years, 11 months. Five models of the SB5 were analyzed using Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS). Our findings indicated that a hierarchical, four-factor, post-hoc model provided the best fit to the data. Generally, implications for school psychologists include a better understanding of the factor structure of the SB5, especially as it relates to high-achieving children. Directions for future research are also discussed. C 2010

No abstract