| Test Number |
2 |
| Title |
A Survey of Students’ Educational Talent and Skills: A.S.S.E.T.S. |
| Author |
Grand Rapids Public Schools (MI) |
| Category |
Rating Scale Self-Report Inventory |
| Copyright Date |
1986 |
| Availability |
Out of Print |
| Restrictions |
|
| Age/Grade Level |
Grades K-6 |
| Cost |
No data as to recent pricing. |
| Forms |
Two forms: K-3 and Inc.K-6. |
| Source |
No current source available. |
| Address |
Originally developed in the Grand Rapids (MI) Public Schools |
| Phone |
|
| Fax |
|
| web or e-mail |
|
| Definition |
Creative Thinking Ability is indicated by: the ability to think of a large number of solutions; appreciation of funny storied; enjoyment in telling funny stories; an appreciation of adventure and taking risks; a lot of curiosity about new things; a great deal of imagination; an eagerness to discuss new ideas or information |
| Purposes |
The instrument is designed to help identify children’s gifts and talents, and to help in planning enrichment experiences for these children. |
| Characteristics |
Generating Ideas Digging Deeper into Ideas Openness and Courage to Explore Ideas Listening to One's Inner Voice |
| Manual |
| Fair |
Manual describes each instrument, outlines the procedure for administering and scoring the inventories, and suggests possible applications of the results. |
| Validity |
| Poor |
Data not available. |
| Reliability |
| Poor |
Data not available. |
| Utility |
| Fair |
Any professional can administer the test to individuals or groups. The parent survey lacks explicit direction on administering the interest section to the child and lacks information on how to record the data. Poor formatting of the student answer sheet decreases the ease of administration. However, the feedback form is clear and offers understandable scoring interpretation. |
| Interpretation |
| Fair |
Five scores are reported addressing interests and talent areas; academic motivational characteristics, creative thinking ability, visual and performing arts.The teacher Inventory items seem mixed in level and style; student self-report items seem to be questions of style leaning towards an Explorer preference, although # 19 seems to tape type; parent inventory items tap mostly style while # 22 looks at type. |
| Propriety |
| Poor |
Not addressed in the manual |
| Reviews & Related Lit |
| TiP V, 1999) Reviews in widely referenced sources (e.g., MMY): MMY #10, 1989: Newman, D. L. “The attempt to include parents in the assessment process in a direct manner is to be commended; however, the present format necessitates an assumption that all children have a parent who is willing and able to conduct that portion of the instrument.” Rust, J. O. “The chief strength of the survey is that the parent’s, child’s and teacher’s opinions are all used. It makes good sense to include a broad range of opinions in developing instructional decisions about talented youngsters. A second relative strength … is the focus on student interest. …The survey is weakened by its lack of information about reliability, validity, and normative data.” |
Back to Index Next Test |
Center for