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).

Seeking information about preconceived notions of the educational needs of children who are gifted, we asked 285 undergraduates in prerequisite classes for teacher education to complete questionnaires. topics addressed included the need for special services for children who are gifted, perceptions of forms of service delivery in elementary schools, and egalitarian versus elitist issues in gifted education. Preferences among our respondents fell in favor of services carried out in general classroom settings at elementary schools, reflecting egalitarian attitudes. We found misconceptions, compared to empirical evidence, for notions about tutoring practices and academic acceleration. in their response rates to items, undergraduates previously served as gifted differed only occasionally from those not served as gifted. We discuss implications of our findings in terms of the need for proponents of gifted programs to address some misconceptions that appear to be related to school reform and appropriate services for children who are gifted.

Second Edition (KBIT-2; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004b) is designed to provide a brief, individualized format for measuring verbal and nonverbal intelligence in children and adults from the ages of 4 years, 0 months through 90 years, 11 months. The test consists of only three subtests. Two are classified as Verbal subtests, and one is classified as a Nonverbal subtest. The KBIT-2 was developed alongside the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004a) and is primarily associated with the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of assessment and interpretation (Carroll, 1997). According to the KBIT-2 Manual, the entire test can be administered in approximately 15 to 30 minutes. Kaufman and Kaufman (2004b) recommend that the KBIT-2 be used as a screener for intellectual abilities in situations such as identification of children who are at-risk for academic problems, as part of gifted and talented selection (although full-scale assessment may be necessary to fulfill state guidelines), as part of assessment procedures for job applicants, as part of test batteries where the intellectual profile is not the primary concern, for forensic purposes, for re-evaluations, and for various similar circumstances that do not demand full-scale assessment of cognitive ability. The test authors caution against using the KBIT-2 for the purposes of diagnosis or placement, as more comprehensive assessment would most likely be necessary for these purposes.Unlike full-scale intelligence tests, the KBIT-2 is classified as a Level B instrument and may be administered by psychologists as well as by nonpsychologists such as educators and vocational or medical personnel who have received appropriate training and practice. Kaufman and Kaufman justify this recommendation based on the objective scoring elements. The verbal questions require one-word responses, and visual items require only pointing to the correct choice. Interpretation of test results should be carried out by individuals with formal training in assessment.The original KBIT (Kaufman & Kaufman, 1990) contained three subtests: Expressive Vocabulary, Definitions, and Matrices. In revising the test, the test authors decided to drop the Definitions subtest because of its reading requirement, replacing it with the new Verbal Knowledge Subtest, which requires no reading on the part of the examinee and which was deemed to be a cleaner measure of verbal ability.

No abstract