Identifying Gifted and Talented Students in Hong Kong.

Gifted education in Hong Kong reflects the Chinese tradition of valuing and nurturing special abilities in children. Thus, identifying and selecting gifted and talented students into programs are central. Currently, procedures in Hong Kong generally emphasize the use of standardized instruments for identifying the intellectually gifted (using the Hong Kong Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children or Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices), the academically gifted (using the Hong Kong Attainment Tests), and the creatively gifted (using the Chinese versions of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking or the Wallach-Kogan Tests). Advocating the use of multiple criteria, educators in Hong Kong also employ informal measures such as nominations and rating scales. The complexity of the identification process was illustrated with the Chinese University Summer Gifted Program procedures of nomination, screening, and selection based on multiple measures and the ultimate criteria of matching individual specific needs with program services available. The issues regarding students being labeled as gifted or nongifted as a result of identification, the all-or-none misconception of giftedness, and the need to design and evaluate multiple measures and identification procedures are discussed.

Identification of students for gifted and talented programs is generally acknowledged as a critical step. On a list of 12 issues, identification was rated by 29 experts as priority number one issue, followed by selection and training of teachers, and curriculum selection (Cramer, 1991). Identification is a complex issue. Indeed, there are as many procedures, strategies, and policies for identifying gifted and talented students as there are programs. Moreover, there are many types of abilities, gifts, and talents, and each can be assessed by multiple measures (such as tests, grades, and questionnaires; teacher, parent, and peer questionnaires, ratings, and nominations; evaluation of products, performances, motivation, and creativity). Although it is acknowledged that multiple measures should be employed for different talents or gifts, the ideal identification system has yet to be developed (Feldhusen, Hoover, & Sayler, 1990).

Historically, our Chinese ancestors were keen on identifying and nurturing gifted and talented children, and they anticipated modern notions of gifted education, including the multiple-talent concept of giftedness, and the importance of support and differentiated education in the development of gifts and talents (Tsuin-Chen, 1961). Specifically, giftedness, talent, or cai in Chinese was categorized into different types (Chan, 1996). At the top of the hierarchy was tian cai (heavenly ability) such as the cai exhibited in the exceptional abilities of geniuses, or the precocious abilities of prodigies or shen tong (godlike child). Tian cai was regarded as an inborn ability, a natural endowment from heaven, and was superior to all types of cai. Acquired or developed talents or abilities were grouped under ren cai (human ability) which was inferior to tian cai. Finally, Chinese tradition discussed yong cai or mediocre ability, the lowest form of cai and equivalent to the lack of giftedness or talent. The notion that all people should be educated according to their abilities or yin cai shi jiao frequently has been attributed to Confucius of 500 B. C., who highlighted the importance of nurturing ren cai so that cai did not degenerate into yong cai (mediocre ability). It was also said that as early as 1000 B. C., Chinese government officials emphasized developing or nurturing talents or abilities in at least six different domains, including music, archery, horsemanship, the rites and ceremonies of private and public life, writing and mathematics (Zhang, 1988).

Although the early Chinese recognized that manifestations of giftedness and talents could be in leadership, imagination, originality, reasoning, reading speed, memory capacity, and perceptual sensitivity (Tsuin-Chen, 1961), gifted and talented children or prodigies were often identified by their early literary abilities as reflected in their abilities to compose poems and essays at a young age (Chan, in press). Similar emphasis on literary or academic potential in the identification of gifted and talented students continues today in Chinese societies. Thus, gifted and talented students are generally identified on the basis of demonstrated academic abilities as zi you (quality of excellence) in Taiwan, and as chao chang (supernormal) in Mainland China. While academic abilities have also been traditionally emphasized in the identification of gifted students in Hong Kong, there is an increasing recognition of the need to extend this narrow emphasis to include the assessment of different aspects of giftedness and talents in identification procedures in Hong Kong.

Evolving Needs for Identification

Identification of gifted and talented students was not an issue prior to the 1970s and 1980s when the Hong Kong education system was elitist. Giftedness and talent were generally viewed narrowly as equivalent to academic abilities, and there was no official definition of giftedness and talent to guide identification procedures. There were no standardized instruments for assessing students' intellectual aptitude and scholastic achievements. Academically gifted students were selected through a sequence of public examinations to enter institutes of higher learning. The only constraints on access to higher education for these students were, perhaps, financial considerations. Since there was no provision for special education for students whose abilities were nonacademic in the mainstream school system, there was no urgent need for an identification procedure for identifying and selecting talented students into programs.

With the introduction of free and compulsory education for school children and adolescents aged 6 to 11 in 1971, which was extended to those aged 12 to 14 in 1978, the Hong Kong education system has slowly aimed to provide equal access to all school-aged children and adolescents. One consequence of implementing this nine-year compulsory education system is the increasing awareness of school and classroom problems arising from the diverse learning and emotional needs of a student population not limited to those who are academically or intellectually superior. After undertaking an overall review of the curriculum issues and school behavioral problems related to the nine-year compulsory education, the Hong Kong Education Commission in its fourth report made a large number of recommendations to improve the quality of education by initiating changes in curriculum development, strengthening guidance, providing counseling and remedial services to students, and providing special services which address the special educational needs of students at both ends of the ability spectrum (Hong Kong Education Commission, 1990).

Although its primary concern was to examine and address curriculum and behavioral problems in schools in the context of compulsory education, the Hong Kong Education Commission (1990) in this fourth report introduced the first local policy statement on gifted education and a definition of giftedness. This definition of giftedness had implications for identification of gifted students in Hong Kong. Specifically, the Commission adopted a modified version of the U. S. Federal Definition of giftedness (Marland, 1972) that included demonstrated achievement and/or potential in any one of the areas: general intellectual ability; specific academic abilities; creative or productive thinking; leadership ability; visual and performing arts; and psychomotor ability (Hong Kong Board of Education, 1996).

In the U.S., psychomotor ability subsequently has been excluded from the 1978 and 1988 revised Federal Definitions, as artistic psychomotor ability talents could be included under performing arts, and athletically gifted students were typically served in nongifted programs (Davis & Rimm, 1994). In Hong Kong, psychomotor ability has not been excluded in the definition of giftedness. The Commission nonetheless recognized that opportunities for developing students' arts, music, and sports have been well provided for in various nongifted programs in Hong Kong. Moreover, identification of talented performers and artists using auditions and portfolios has generally been accepted as the responsibility of the teachers of these arts. Consequently, the Commission focused on making recommendations for special provisions for academically gifted students, who either have a high level of measured intelligence, or specific academic aptitude in a subject area, or creative thinking, that is, high ability to invent novel, elaborate and numerous ideas. With this focus on such a targeted population, the development of identification instruments and procedures in Hong Kong emphasizes the identification of the intellectually gifted, the academically gifted, and the creatively gifted with the understanding that a gifted and talented student may be intellectually, academically, and creatively gifted, or academically but not creatively gifted, or any combination of the three facets of giftedness.

Identifying the Intellectually Gifted

It has been said that giftedness, conceptualized as original contribution to a field, requires nonacademic abilities often unrelated to school achievement. Thus, general intellectual ability frequently has been used as an important selection criterion for programs. In Hong Kong, despite accepting the adaptation of the U.S. federally legislated definition of giftedness (Marland, 1972) with its major purpose to expand the concept of giftedness beyond IQ, high IQ of 130 or above is frequently employed as the sole criterion defining giftedness for admission to special government services such as those provided by the Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Centre in Hong Kong.

The assessment of intelligence using individual tests is usually based on the administration of the Hong Kong Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (HK-WISC), normed and standardized with Hong Kong children 5 to 15 years of age (Psychological Corporation, 1981). The HK-WISC was originally adapted from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC and WISC-R; Wechsler, 1949, 1974) for the purpose of screening slow learners and children with mental retardation. Students with high general intellectual ability, however, can also reliably be identified as those scoring 130 (2 standard deviations) or above. Another intelligence test, Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM), suited for group assessment, also has been normed and standardized for Hong Kong children (Hong Kong Education Department, 1986). Although SPM assesses nonverbal intelligence, it is said to be less culturally biased than verbal tests and found to be a valid alternative to individual intelligence tests such as the HK-WISC in the assessment of general intellectual ability.

The traditional assessment procedures described may eventually be broadened or replaced to reflect the changing concept of intelligence such as those of Sternberg (1991), who identified triarchic abilities, or Gardner (1983), who identified seven intelligences. The broadening of the concept of intelligence may also help solve the difficult problem of differentiating the good test takers (knowledge-acquisition gifted), who do well in the examination-oriented school system, from the gifted (gifted executive planner and decision-maker), who may be underachieving. This expansion may eventually bring us into the domains of specific abilities, creativity, intrapersonal and interpersonal skills and competencies under emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995).

While the education community in Hong Kong has been slow in accepting the concept of multiple intelligences, the G. T. School, founded by the Gifted Education Council in Hong Kong, started to enroll primary students into an enrichment curriculum in 1997. Although students are not admitted on the basis of IQ scores, it is intended that all admitted students will be assessed on their multiple intelligences in linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal areas (Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 1991), so that their respective gifts and talents may be appropriately recognized and developed. At present, informal intelligence-in-operation measures have been designed for the assessment of the six cognitive domains (excluding intrapersonal intelligence) for students admitted to the G. T. School. The validation of these measures, however, awaits further investigation.

Identifying the Academically or High-Achieving Gifted

Academic achievement test scores frequently have been used in addition to IQ scores in the identification of gifted and talented students in Hong Kong. Assessing academic achievement or performance is less complicated and controversial than assessing general intelligence or creativity. Taking group achievement tests, especially those designed by teachers, is common in schools in the Hong Kong education system. The challenge, however, is to identify potential when academic ability is not clearly demonstrated in achievement tests. The identification process also becomes more difficult when the student in question has one or more specific academic aptitudes among other more average academic abilities.

Since the 1980s, the Hong Kong Government Education Department has launched a project of designing a set of grade-specific attainment tests in English, Chinese, and Mathematics based on the common curriculum or corresponding subject syllabus of Hong Kong schools. Normative data have been collected and grade norms are used to evaluate the achievement of students, and to diagnose their backwardness in grade levels in the three subjects of English, Chinese, and Mathematics. Subsequently, these tests were named the Hong Kong Attainment Tests (HKAT), and are distributed to schools for use with students at the completion of each grade from Primary 1 to Secondary 3 (Hong Kong Education Department, 1992). On the basis of data collected from schools, these tests and their norms have been continuously updated to reflect the achievement of primary and secondary students in Hong Kong.

Although originally designed as tests to screen students for backwardness in grade levels in English, Chinese, and Mathematics, the HKAT enjoy an unrivaled status as the only well-normed achievement tests in Hong Kong. Students who achieve at the 90th or 95th percentile on English, Chinese, or Mathematics can be regarded as academically gifted on the respective subjects. While specific academic aptitudes on these three subject areas can be assessed relatively validly and reliably, valid and reliable assessment instruments for other specific academic aptitudes such as science have yet to be developed in Hong Kong.

Identifying the Creatively Gifted

Although creativity or creative potential is generally acknowledged as a key component in the definition of giftedness in addition to general intelligence and specific academic achievements, the assessment of creativity is more complex and controversial. This complexity is a result of the various conceptions of creativity and models, which emphasize different environmental conditions and the different cognitive processes on the generation of creative products by creative people (Feldhusen & Goh, 1995). Thus, a single instrument is generally considered inappropriate. In contrast, combinations of instruments, which focus on cognitive abilities, personality characteristics, motivations, and background experiences, are considered necessary. Hocevar and Bachelor (1989), for example, suggested eight categories of creativity assessment: tests of divergent thinking; attitude and interest inventories; personality inventories; biographical inventories; ratings by teachers, peers, and supervisors; judgments of products; eminence; and self-reported creative activities and achievements. Viewed in this manner, it is no surprise that Hong Kong has been slow in incorporating the assessment of creativity in the identification of gifted and talented students.

Recognizing the desirability of including the assessment of creativity in the identification process, the Hong Kong Government Education Department, with donations from the Hong Kong Jockey Club, commissioned studies on the norming of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) and on the identification of gifted students in Hong Kong schools (Spinks, Ku-Yu, Shek, & Bacon-Shone, 1995). The TTCT were chosen on the basis of the experience of the usage of these tests in other Chinese societies such as Taiwan (e.g., Wu, Kao, Wang, & Ting, 1981a, 1981b). With verbal and figural subtests of the TTCT, the creative thinking or creative potential of a student can be scored in terms of fluency, flexibility (number of categories of ideas or approaches to the problem), originality, and elaboration (number of additional details and embellishments in the figural tests). Another set of alternative tests, the Wallach-Kogan divergent thinking tests (WKT; Wallach & Kogan, 1965), have also been used with Hong Kong students (Chan, Cheung, Lau, Wu, Kwong, & Li., in press). The WKT consist of three verbal subtests, Instances (measuring fluency), Alternative Uses (measuring flexibility), and Similarities (measuring associational fluency), and two nonverbal subtests, Pattern Meanings and Line Meanings (tapping visual divergent responses). It is anticipated that both the TTCT and the WKT will be increasingly used by educators in Hong Kong as measures of creative thinking in the test battery for the identification of gifted and talented students.

Identification by Informal Measures

Apart from the development of formal or standardized measures for the identification process, informal measures of different kinds have also been used. At the simple level, informal measures may be nominations by teachers, parents, peers, and students themselves. For example, teachers or parents may be asked to judge the suitability of students for inclusion in a program, perhaps with some explanations based on their observations of students' intellectual and academic abilities, personality characteristics and background experiences. In this manner, nominations can be used as informal measures for identifying the intellectually, academically, and creatively gifted. However, unlike the identification of students with high intelligence or high academic achievements where objective test scores are often regarded as more valid and reliable, since creativity is complex and may take innumerable forms, the identification of creativity in students typically requires multiple criteria based on formal and informal measures. Thus, apart from standardized self-report measures of students' divergent thinking, the subjective opinions of teachers, parents, or peers based on their observations of students' personality and motivational characteristics, and past creative activities and products, are thought to be valuable information which may remain untapped using formal standardized measures. These subjective impressions of students' creative abilities, personality characteristics, or quality of past creative activities may also be recorded in objective and standardized questionnaires, inventories, and checklists.

In Hong Kong, teacher and parent nominations are relatively common, and they frequently form the basis for follow-up intellectual assessment at the Psychological Services of the Special Education Unit of the Hong Kong Education Department in the identification of gifted students. In the studies on norming the Torrance tests for Hong Kong students, the research team (Spinks et al., 1995) also adapted and translated the Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS; Renzulli, Smith, White, Callahan, & Hartman, 1976), which include ratings on the learning, motivational, creative, and leadership characteristics of students. Although the Chinese versions of the SRBCSS have not been widely used in identification so far, their use as additional criteria supporting or validating standardized measures is likely to increase in future identification procedures.

A Multiple-Criteria Identification Procedure in Hong Kong: An Example

Recognizing that gifted and talented secondary students need a variety of challenging and enriching experiences, the Chinese University of Hong Kong launched a summer program for gifted students in grades 7 and 8 in 1997. The program was the first one conducted by a university in Hong Kong (Chan, 1997). The procedure of identification and selection of gifted and talented students for the 1997 Chinese University Summer Gifted Program illustrates the increasing use of multiple measures in identification in Hong Kong. The following is a description of the use of multiple measures in this complementary and sequential nomination-screening-selection procedure.

Initially, we requested schools to nominate students who were observed to be outstanding in performance in school activities, intellectually, academically, or creatively gifted, or of high leadership abilities. In our communication with the schools, we included a rating checklist of student characteristics to alert school officials or principals to the behavioral indicators and levels of performance expected. We also sought self-nominations from students who were assessed at high intelligence and were provided services at the Fung Hon Chu Gifted Education Center. By casting a broad net for a relatively large number of prospectively gifted students, we hoped this nomination exercise would help us avoid false negatives in our selection, that is, avoid missing students who are really gifted or talented.

We received 192 nominations from 68 schools, including self-nominations supported by school recommendations. We also requested students and schools to report school grades, intelligence test scores, and achievement test scores. These test scores were used to screen for students who might have high potential either intellectually or academically. For example, it was possible to identify students with IQ of 130 or above if test scores were recorded in the files. By reference to percentile norms in the HKAT, students in the top 5 % in their performance on English, Chinese and Mathematics could also be found. Ratings by school officials on students' creativity, leadership ability, and self-efficacy provided additional information. It was expected that any one of the multiple measures was indicative of talent or ability, and we did not expect students to show high ability on all of them in order to be selected for the program. This screening process was intended to avoid selecting false positives or unqualified students who did not need the services in the program. The risk to be minimized was the admission of unqualified students to take up valuable time of teachers when qualified students or false negatives should have been included in the program.

Our final selection process was guided by criteria related to the individual specific needs of students and program services available. Specific needs were, in our case, defined or indicated by the students' preferences or choices of four courses or enrichment activities from our set of 14 courses. Available program services were constrained by the limited number of students (9-15) in the courses to allow intensive, in-depth discussion and hand-on experiences. Thus, students who were selected into the program were those we could assign to courses of their first preferences (or second preferences if their first choices were no longer available), and who at the same time had provided evidence of their gifts or talents related to the courses. Accordingly, students who scored 95 percentile or above in Mathematics on the HKAT, and who expressed their first preference in enrolling in a course on Mathematics were on the priority list for admission to the program. This nomination-screening-selection process thus represents an integrative identification procedure that utilizes available valid measures in a multi-stage and multiple-criteria process. The flowchart in Figure 1 summarizes the process of selection of 104 students into the 1997 summer program.

[Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Beyond Identification

With the introduction of the adapted definition of giftedness in the fourth report of the Hong Kong Education Commission (1990), the expansion of the concept of giftedness to include different aspects and specific talents, and the availability of different standardized measures in assessing intellectual, academic, and creative giftedness, identification of gifted and talented students in Hong Kong is anticipated to move from a single criterion of IQ score to multiple criteria involving multiple measures which may help ensure that one or more aspects of giftedness that might be missed by a single test can be uncovered. Further, it is now increasingly accepted that the examination of the profile of scores may help in the judgment of whether one or another form of giftedness is found in a student, and whether appropriate educational services to promote and further develop that special gift or talent can be arranged. Thus, the current practice of using a single criterion of IQ score for admission to government programs will soon be replaced with multiple criteria based on available valid measures.

Identification of students for admission to a gifted program always carries the risk of those admitted being labeled by teachers and parents as gifted, and those not admitted as nongifted, even though it is typically emphasized that the sole purpose of the process is to select students for programs and services. Thus the result of identification is of profound importance to students and their parents, as the all-or-none conception or misconception of giftedness appears to be firmly held by parents and teachers in Hong Kong, and cannot be easily dispelled. Our ethical concern with the educational and personal welfare of students dictates that the identification process should be conducted with the most defensible procedures and the most valid and reliable identifying instruments available. On this basis, the need for evaluation of selection criteria and identification procedures has to be emphasized in Hong Kong. Informal evaluation may take the form of judgments by teachers, counselors, and parents about false positives and false negatives, or about the match among program goals, services, and students identified for the program. More formal evaluation may involve estimation of the validity and reliability of tests, rating scales, and multiple measures for identification, or assessment of the predictive validity of the identification process for subsequent school achievement and creative productivity outside school and after graduation. The emergence of special gifts or talents in relation to different levels of development of students also dictates that identification should be a continuous process instead of a one-time activity for all programs (Feldhusen, 1991). Nonetheless, continuous evaluation of identification process and continuous identification will ensure uncovering and clarification of students' special talents and aptitudes so that appropriate educational services can be provided to optimize the growth and development of these special abilities.

In summary, while a multiple-talent conception of giftedness has been anticipated in Chinese history, few efforts at systematic identification and programming for the gifted and talented were observed prior to the 1990s in Hong Kong. With the adoption of a Western conception of giftedness defined to include aspects of giftedness and specific talents, the traditional emphasis on identifying intellectually and academically able students on the basis of a single criterion of IQ score has slowly given way to the use of multiple-criteria measures in identification procedures in Hong Kong. Such changes, however, will not go unchallenged. Practitioners and educators might raise objections based on the availability of the relatively insufficient number of locally normed and standardized measures to tap different aspects of giftedness and talent domains, and the relative complexity and decreased efficiency when multiple measures rather than a single measure are employed. Administrators and policy makers, on the other hand, might raise issues regarding resources and cost-effectiveness. Thus, in line with the broadened concept of intelligence and the inclusion of multiple talent areas, the need to design more authentic and complex multiple measures, and to evaluate such measures together with the identification procedures has to be emphasized in future identification and programming for the gifted and talented in Hong Kong.

REFERENCES

Chan, D. W. (1997). Education for the gifted and talented: What programs are best suited for Hong Kong? New Horizons in Education, 38, 22-27.

Chan, D. W. (in press). Development of gifted education in Hong Kong. Gifted Education International.

Chan, D. W., Cheung, P. C., Lau, S., Wu, W. Y. H., Kwong, J. M. L., & Li, W. L. (in press). Assessing ideational fluency in primary students in Hong Kong using the Wallach-Kogan tests. Creativity Research Journal.

Chan, J. (1996). Chinese intelligence. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 93- 108). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

Cramer, R. H. (1991). The education of gifted children in the United States: A Delphi study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 84-91.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented (3rd Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Feldhusen, J. E. (1991). Identification of gifted and talented youth. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice. Vol. 4 (pp. 7-21). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Feldhusen, J. E., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231-247.

Feldhusen, J. E., Hoover, S. M., & Sayler, M. F. (1990). Identifying and educating gifted students at the secondary level. New York: Trillium Press.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.

Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53-75). New York: Plenum.

Hong Kong Board of Education. (1996). Report of the Subcommittee on Special Education. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

Hong Kong Education Commission. (1990). Education Commission Report No. 4. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

Hong Kong Education Department (1986). Hong Kong supplement to guide to the Standard Progressive Matrices. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

Hong Kong Education Department (1992). Hong Kong Attainment Tests. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Government.

Marland, S. P. Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Volume 1. Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Psychological Corporation. (1981). Hong Kong Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Manual. New York: Author.

Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (1991). Giftedness from a multiple intelligences perspective. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 55-64). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J. Callahan, C. M., & Hartman, R. K. (1976) Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Spinks, J. A., Ku-Yu, S. Y., Shek, D. T. L., & Bacon-Shone, J. H. (1995). The Hong Kong Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Technical Report.

Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Giftedness according to the triarchic theory of intelligence. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp.45-54). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Tsuin-Chen, O. (1961). Some facts and ideas about talent and genius in Chinese history. In G. Z. F. Bereday & J. A. Lauwery (Eds.), Concepts of excellence in education: The yearbook of education (pp. 54-61). New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A stud)' of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Wechsler, D. (1949). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York: Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.

Wu, J. J., Kao, C. F., Wang, J. Y., & Ting, S. S. (1981a). [Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Figural Form A]. Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan Liu Press. (In Chinese).

Wu, J. J., Kao, C. F., Wang, J. Y., & Ting, S. S. (1981b). [Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Verbal Form B]. Taipei, Taiwan: Yuan Liu Press. (In Chinese).

Zhang, H. C. (1988). Psychological measurement in China. International Journal of Psychology, 23, 101-124.

David W. Chan is Professor, Department of Educational Psychology, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and is involved in and responsible for the initiation and development of the Programs for the Gifted and Talented at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.