This is what I received from the publisher a few days ago. It still skirts the issues.
Upon working with CogAT’s Product Manager, we came across the following information in the scoring interpretation guide for our latest CogAT Form 7:
The Score Interpretation Guide for CogAT 7 recommends the use of multiple measures in combination for talent identification, including measures of student academic achievement and self-evaluation, or teacher ratings of student interest and motivation, not just CogAT.
Our CogAT author, Dr. David Lohman, is a world-renowned expert on abilities testing and talent identification. He frequently discusses the need for multiple measures in talent identification and programming decisions. Quite a bit of his work has focused on fairness and equal opportunities for all students, including economically disadvantaged students and English language learners. You may find some resources on Dr. Lohman’s website regarding this topic. His papers and presentations are publicly available here:
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/david-lohman/home In particular, in two of his presentations he uses this terminology with regard to talent identification:
Cast a broad net
—Use multiple sources of information
—Emphasize “or” rather than “and” to combine scores
Page 3:
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/docs/dlohman/CogAT7-Screening-for-Austin-handout.pdf Page 10:
http://faculty.education.uiowa.edu/...s-for-talent-identification.pdf?sfvrsn=0
