The need for assessing higher level thinking skills and using appropriate evaluation methods in programs for the gifted is necessary to better evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. The purpose of this study was to test the claim of Novak and Gowin (1984) that concept maps required higher level thinking skills. A related purpose of the study was to assess which type of measure, a multiple choice test or concept maps, could yield a more accurate or detailed picture of the gains in content understanding of students performing at the highest level on the instruments. A mixed method research design was used to answer the research questions. We concluded that concept maps and multiple choice tests did not measure or require the same thinking skills because of non-significant correlations between the two instruments. Three judges' qualitative analysis also indicated that the number of items requiring higher level thinking skills on multiple choice tests was limited. Concept mapping as a whole process and the crosslinks component of concept mapping required analysis or higher level thinking skills. Also we concluded that concept mapping as a whole process has the potential to show greater gains in scores of the students than the multiple choice items, and crosslinks component of concept mapping that required analysis or higher level thinking skills. To have an alignment between the curricula of programs for gifted students and assessment methods used in these programs, the search for assessment methods requiring higher thinking skills is necessary and needs more investigation. Introduction The Use of Concept Maps as a Tool to Measure Complex Understanding in Elementary School Science ClassesGifted students differ from other students because of their high abilities and unique needs for teaching and learning environments. When providing learning experiences for gifted students, three components should be considered to meet their needs and to help them perform at their ability levels: context of the classroom or the school (learning environment), appropriateness of curriculum modifications, and evaluation of the result of the first two steps to determine whether one specific teachinglearning model or combination is better to provide a more appropriate program (Maker, 1982;Maker & Nielson, 1995;Maker & Schiever, 2005, 2010Tortop, 2015).Learning environment modifications are the essential and prior modifications before making any modifications to the curriculum. Maker and Schiever (2010) listed eight dimensions of the learning environment that should be modified for optimum growth and development of both gifted and non-gifted students and provide comfort, autonomy, and opportunities to those students. According to Maker and Schiever (2010), the learning environment should be learner centered, facilitative of independence, open, accepting, complex, facilitative of varied groupings, flexible, and facilitative of high mobility.The next step for a better learning experience for gifted students is modification of...