No abstract

No abstract

Socially related self-concept, attributions for social success and failure, and peer relationships were investigated for fourth through sixth graders identified as intellectually gifted and a comparison group of high achievers not identified as gifted. The group identified as gifted scored significantly higher on 3 of 4 socially related self-concept subscales ( p < .01) and on the general self-concept scale ( p < .05) of the Self-Description Questionnaire-I (Marsh, 1988). On the Student Social Attribution Scale (Bell & McCallum, 1995), an interaction effect was noted, with the group identified as gifted scoring higher than the comparison group on attributions for social success due to ability and effort and lower on attributions for social failure due to ability, effort, and task difficulty. Though teachers‘ ratings of peer relationships yielded no differences between the 2 groups, boys across groups were rated significantly higher than girls ( p < .05).

The purpose of this article is to present a model for screening for twice-exceptional status (i.e., gifted students who have a learning disability). Curriculum-based measures (Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness: Reading and Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness: Math) were administered to 1,242 third-grade students within a Response to Intervention paradigm. When gifted status is tentatively defined as high performance (i.e., 84th percentile and higher) on a Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness reading probe, 5.48% of students exhibited deficits in (math) performance consistent with a significant discrepancy between reading and math (i.e., reading score – math score); 4.83% exhibited a discrepancy in reading (i.e., math score – reading). These values are based on observed scores using the following formula to define a discrepancy: 1.5(SD) × SEe. Only 2.1% exhibited a math discrepancy and 1.13% a reading discrepancy based on predicted scores, which takes regression to the mean into account. Using various cut score criteria, practitioners can select from less than 1% to about 10% for screening purposes. When using predicted (rather than observed) scores and more stringent cut score criteria, percentages decline, as expected. Recommendations for using this process for screening are provided, as are implications for best practice, particularly the impact of using more or less conservative criteria for screening twice exceptional students.

Seventy-four students read passages from an individually administered test of reading comprehension (a subtest from the Test of Dyslexia, a test of reading and related abilities currently in development; McCallum & Bell, 2001), and then answered literal and inferential questions. Students were randomly assigned to one of two conditions; 39 students read the passages silently and 35 read orally, with time recorded for each passage read. Comprehension and time were dependent measures for a Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) and two follow-up Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA). After controlling for reading ability, results from the MAN-COVA showed a significant combined effect ( p Ͻ .05); however, a comparison of mean reading comprehension scores showed no significant difference between silent readers and oral readers ( p Ͼ .05). On the other hand, with reading ability controlled, silent readers took significantly less time to complete passages compared to those who read orally ( p Ͻ .02). In fact, students took 30% longer to read orally than silently, on average. When test directions do not specify either oral or silent reading and error analysis is not a goal, testing will be more efficient via silent responding with no loss of comprehension. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Efficacy of silent versus oral reading has been the focus of a number of investigations with inconclusive results, due perhaps to different sample characteristics, test conditions, and dependent measures across studies. This study was designed to determine whether differences occur in performance and efficiency for a sample of elementary students as a function of reading individually administered test passages silently versus orally.Several researchers in the 1970s found oral reading to produce superior comprehension under some conditions. For example, Swalm (1972) and Elgart (1978) found that young readers (second and third graders, respectively) comprehended better after reading orally. More recently, Fletcher and Pumfrey (1988) found that oral reading led to greater comprehension than silent reading for 7-and 8-year-olds. Passages and comprehension questions were taken from an individually administered standardized reading instrument, typically requiring oral reading of text and oral responding to comprehension questions; two passages were completed for each of the three reading modes. The passages were not presented as a part of a complete test administration. Test format was not specified, i.e., the authors did not indicate whether passages were presented in a one-to-one versus group administration.In contrast, Rowell (1976) and Miller and Smith (1985) found mixed results. Specifically, Rowell found comprehension to be higher under an oral reading condition for urban/suburban fifth graders and for males but not for rural fifth graders and females. In a study of 94 second through fifth graders, Miller and Smith (1985) asked students to read one passage silently and one passage orally. After each passage, the students answered both...