Advertisement

Identification and Nurturing the Gifted from an International Perspective

  • Kurt A. Heller
  • Neville J. Schofield

After a brief overview of recent research paradigms in the field of giftedness and talent, this chapter centers on the following main topics:

  1. 1.

    Multidimensional conceptions of giftedness as theoretical basis and preconditions of suitable identification procedures and educational measurements.

     
  2. 2.

    Functions and benefits versus dangers of identification measures as well as of gifted education and programming versus omission of them.

     
  3. 3.

    Methodological problems of identification, e.g., for educational programs (talent search), early identification and nurturing, dynamic assessment and nurturing at-risk groups (gifted underachievers, gifted females, etc.) or prediction of excellence in school, higher education, and work.

     
  4. 4.

    Programs and strategies for nurturing intelligence, creativity, social competence,etc., including cross-cultural studies in gifted education.

     
  5. 5.

    Counseling aspects of gifted education as tasks of school psychologists, e.g.,career counseling with gifted, counseling with families (parents), school counselingprograms for gifted students.

     
  6. 6.

    Practical recommendations for (school) psychologists who are responsible for identifying and nurturing gifted students.

     

Keywords

International Perspective Career Counseling Gifted Student Gifted Child Talented Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, A.S., & Moon, S.M. (2004). Gifted students’ perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin, A.Y., Vialle, W., & Clarke, C. (2000). Global professionalism and perceptions of teachers of the gifted. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 565–572). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  4. Borland, J.H., & Wright, L. (2000). Identifying and educating poor and under-represented gifted students. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 587–594). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  5. Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, & A.H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 649–668). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, J.R., Wagner, H., & Walberg, H.J. (2000). Academic competitions and programs designed to challenge the exceptionally talented. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 523–535). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Casey, J.P., & Quisenberry, N.L. (1982). Hochbegabung in der frühen Kindheit–Ein Forschungsüberblick [Giftedness in early childhood–A review] (pp. 73–91). Heidelberg: Schindele.Google Scholar
  8. Cattell, R.B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Educational Psychology, 54, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cattell, R.B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Chicago: Penguin.Google Scholar
  10. Cattell, R.B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  11. Colangelo, N. (2001). Message from the director. Vision, 9, 2.Google Scholar
  12. Colangelo, N., & Assouline, S.G. (2000). Counseling gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 595–607). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Colangelo, N., & Brower, P. (1987). Labeling gifted youngsters: Long-term impact on families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 75–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cronbach, L.J., & Gleser, G.C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  15. Czeschlik, T., & Rost, D.H. (1988). Hochbegabte und ihre Peers [The gifted and their peers). Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 2, 1–23.Google Scholar
  16. Detzner, M., & Schmidt, M.H. (1986). Are highly gifted children and adolescents especially susceptible to anorexia nervosa? In K.A. Heller & J.F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Identifying and nurturing the gifted. An international perspective (pp. 149–162). Toronto: Huber Publ.Google Scholar
  17. Endepohls-Ulpe, M. (2004). Wie stellen Grundschullehrkräfte sich hochbegabte Schüler/innen vor? Der Einfluss persönlicher Erfahrung in der Unterrichtung Hochbegabter [Primary school teachers’ images of a gifted pupil—Effects of personal experience in teaching gifted children]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 51, 126–135.Google Scholar
  18. Facaoaru, C., & Bittner, R. (1987). Kognitionspsychologische Ansätze der Hochbegabungsdiagnostik [Cognitive psychological approaches to the diagnosis of giftedness]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 8, 193–205.Google Scholar
  19. Feger, B., & Prado, T. (1986). The first information and counseling center for the gifted in West Germany. In K.A. Heller & J.F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Identifying and nurturing the gifted. An international perspective (pp. 139–148). Toronto: Huber Publ.Google Scholar
  20. Feger, B., & Prado, T.M. (1998). Hochbegabung (High ability). Darmstadt: Primus.Google Scholar
  21. Feldhusen, J.F. (2005). Giftedness, talent, expertise, and creative achievement. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 64–79). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Feldhusen, J.F., & Jarwan, F.A. (2000). Identification of gifted and talented youth for educational programs. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 271–282). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Freeman, J. (2000). Families: The essential context for gifts and talents. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 573–585). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gagné, F. (1989). Peer nominations as a psychometric instrument: Many questions asked but few answered. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gagné, F. (2000). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 67–79). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gagné, F., Bégin, J., & Talbot, L. (1993). How well do peers agree among themselves when nominating the gifted or talented? Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grenier, M.E. (1985). Gifted children and other siblings. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 164–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guthke, J. (1992). Lerntests auch für Hochbegabte? [Learning tests also for highly gifted?] In E.A. Hany & H. Nickel (Eds.), Begabung und Hochbegabung [Giftedness and high ability] (pp. 125–141). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  29. Hany, E.A. (1987). Psychometrische Probleme bei der Identifikation Hochbegabter [Psychometric problems in the identification of the gifted]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 8, 173–191.Google Scholar
  30. Hany, E.A. (1993). Methodological problems and issues concerning identification. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, & A.H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 209–232). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hany, E.A. (2001). Identifikation von Hochbegabten im Schulalter [Identification of highly gifted in school-age]. In K.A. Heller (Ed.), Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter [High ability in childhood and youth] (2nd ed., pp. 41–169). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  32. Heller, K.A. (1989). Perspectives on the diagnosis of giftedness. German Journal of Psychology, 13, 140–159.Google Scholar
  33. Heller, K.A. (Ed.). (1991, 22000). Begabungsdiagnostik in der Schul- und Erziehungsberatung [Identification of gifted students]. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  34. Heller, K.A. (1999). Individual (learning and motivational) needs versus instructional conditions of gifted education. High Ability Studies, 9, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heller, K.A. (Ed.). (2001). Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter [High ability in childhood and youth] (2nd ed.). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  36. Heller, K.A. (Ed.). (2002). Begabtenförderung im Gymnasium [Gifted education in the German gymnasium]. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  37. Heller, K.A. (2004). Identification of gifted and talented students. Psychology Science, 46, 302–323.Google Scholar
  38. Heller, K.A. (2005). Education and counseling of the gifted and talented in Germany. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 26, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Heller, K.A., & Hany, E.A. (1996). Psychologische Modelle der Hochbegabtenförderung [Psychological models of gifted education]. In F.E. Weinert (Ed.), Psychologie des Lernens und der Instruktion, Bd. 2 der Pädagogischen Psychologie (Enzyklopädie der Psychologie) (pp. 477-–13). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  40. Heller, K.A., & Lengfelder, A. (2006). Evaluation study of the International Academic Olympiads. Three decades of cross-cultural and gender findings from North-American, European and East-Asian Olympians. In H. Helfrich, M. Zillekens, & E. Hölter (Eds.), Culture and development in Japan and Germany (pp. 155–170). Münster: Daedalus.Google Scholar
  41. Heller, K.A., Mönks, F.J., Sternberg, R.J., & Subotnik, R.F. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.; rev. 2nd ed. 2002). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  42. Heller, K.A., & Perleth, C. (2004). Adapting conceptual models for cross-cultural applications. In J.R. Campbell, K. Tirri, P. Ruohotie, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Cross-cultural research: Basic issues, dilemmas, and strategies (pp. 81–101). Hämeenlinna, Finland: Research Centre for Vocational Education/University of Tampere.Google Scholar
  43. Heller, K.A., & Perleth, C. (2007). Münchner Hochbegabungs-Testbatterie (MHBT) [Munich High Ability Test Battery]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  44. Heller, K.A., Perleth, C., & Lim, T.K. (2005). The Munich model of giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 147–170). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Heller, K.A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and the sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of gifted females? Gifted Child Quarterly, 40, 200–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jäger, A.O. (1986). Validität von Intelligenztests [Validity of intelligence tests]. Diagnostica, 32, 272–289.Google Scholar
  47. Kanevsky, L. (2000). Dynamic assessment of gifted students. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 283–295). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kaufmann, F.A., & Castellanos, F.X. (2000). Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in gifted students. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 621–632). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  49. Klix, F. (1983). Begabungsforschung–ein neuer Weg in der kognitiven Intelligenzdiagnostik? [Ability research—A new method of cognitive intelligence measurement?] Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 191, 360–386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Lehwald, G. (1986). Frühdiagnostik als Voraussetzung für eine entwicklungsgerechte Förderung begabter Kinder [Early identification as a prerequisite for developmentally appropriate enrichment for gifted children)]. In U. Schaarschmidt, M. Berg, & K.D. Hänsgen (Eds.), Diagnostik geistiger Leistungen (pp. 160–167). Berlin: Volk und Wissen.Google Scholar
  51. Lehwald, G. (1987). Theoretisch-methodologische Positionen zur Diagnostik von Begabungen im Kleinkind- und Vorschulalter [Theoretical-methodological standpoints on the diagnosis of giftedness in toddlers and pre-school children]. In U. Schaarschmidt, M. Berg, & K.D. Hänsgen (Eds.), Neue Trends in der Psychodiagnostik. Berlin: Volk und Wissen.Google Scholar
  52. Lewis, M., & Louis, B. (1991). Young gifted children. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 365–381). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  53. Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s (1904) “ ‘General intelligence’, objectively determined and measured”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 112–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. MacRae, L.D., & Lupart, J.L. (1991). Issues in identifying gifted students: How Renzulli’s model stacks up. Roeper Review, 14, 53–58.Google Scholar
  55. Mönks, F.J. (1987). Einzelfallanalyse in der Hochbegabungsdiagnostik [Single case analysis in the diagnosis of giftedness]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 8, 207–216.Google Scholar
  56. Mönks, F.J. (1992). Ein interaktionales Modell der Hochbegabung [An interaction model of high ability]. In E.A. Hany & H. Nickel (Eds.), Begabung und Hochbegabung (pp. 17–22). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  57. Neber, H. (2004). Teacher identification of students for gifted programs: Nominations to a summer school for highly gifted students. Psychology Science, 46, 348–362.Google Scholar
  58. Pegnato, C.W., & Birch, J.W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools —A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25, 300–304.Google Scholar
  59. Perleth, C. (2001a). Follow-up-Untersuchungen zur Münchner Hochbegabungsstudie [Follow-ups of the Munich Longitudinal Study of Giftedness]. In K.A. Heller (Ed.), Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (2nd ed., pp. 357–446). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  60. Perleth, C. (2001b). Zur Methodik der Münchner Hochbegabungsstudie [Method of the Munich Giftedness Study]. In K.A. Heller (Ed.), Hochbegabung im Kindes- und Jugendalter (2nd ed., pp. 447–477). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  61. Perleth, C., & Heller, K.A. (1994). The Munich Longitudinal Study of Giftedness. In R.F. Subotnik & K.D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 77–114). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  62. Perleth, C., Schatz, T., & Mönks, F.J. (2000). Early identification of high ability. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 297–316). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  63. Peters, W.A.M., Grager-Loidl, H., & Supplee, P. (2000). Underachievement in gifted children and adolescents: Theory and practice. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 609–620). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  64. Pyryt, M.C. (2004). Pegnato revisited: Using discriminant analysis to identify gifted children. Psychology Science, 46, 342–347.Google Scholar
  65. Renzulli, J.S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–279). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Robinson, A. (1986). The identification and labeling of gifted children. What does research tell us? In K.A. Heller & J.F. Feldhusen (Eds.), Identifying and nurturing the gifted. An international perspective (pp. 103–109). Toronto: Huber Publ.Google Scholar
  67. Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P.R. (1998). Giftedness: An exceptionality examined. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 117–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Robinson, N.M. (1993). Identifying and nurturing gifted, very young children. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, & A.H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 507–524). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  69. Robinson, N.M., & Robinson, H. (1992). The use of standardized tests with young gifted children. In P.S. Klein & A.J. Tannenbaum (Eds.), To be young and gifted (pp. 141–170). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  70. Rost, D.H. (Hrsg.). (1993). Lebensumweltanalyse hochbegabter Kinder: das Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt [Analysis of the environmental conditions of gifted children: The Marburg Project]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  71. Rost, D.H. (Ed.). (2000). Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche [Gifted achievers in youth]. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  72. Rysiew, K.J., Shore, B.M., & Carson, A.D. (1994). Multipotentiality and overchoice syndrome: Clarifying common usage. Gifted and Talented International, 9(2), 41–46.Google Scholar
  73. Rysiew, K.J., Shore, B.M., & Leeb, R.T. (1998). Multipotentiality, giftedness, and career choices: A review. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 423–430.Google Scholar
  74. Schofield, N.J., & Hotulainen, R. (2004). Does all cream rise? The plight of unsupported gifted children. Psychology Science, 46, 379–386.Google Scholar
  75. Silverman, L.K. (1993). Counseling needs and programs for the gifted. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, & A.H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 631–647). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  76. Silverman, L.K. (1997). Family counseling with the gifted. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 382–397). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  77. Singer, W. (1999, December).In der Bildung gilt: Je früher, desto besser [In education is valid: The sooner the better]. Psychologie Heute, 60–65.Google Scholar
  78. Stapf, A. (2003). Hochbegabte Kinder [Highly gifted children]. München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  79. Sternberg, R.J. (1993). Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (Level H). Unpublished test.Google Scholar
  80. Sternberg, R.J. (2000). Giftedness as developing expertise. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 55–66). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  81. Sternberg, R.J. (2003). WICS as a model of giftedness. High Ability Studies, 14, 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sternberg, R.J., & Davidson, J.E. (Eds.). (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2002). Dynamic testing. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Sternberg, R.J., & Subotnik, R.F. (2000). A multidimensional framework for synthesizing disparate issues in identification, selecting, and serving gifted children. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 831–838). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  85. Terrassier, J.-C. (1985). Dyssynchrony: Uneven development. In J. Freeman (Ed.), The psychology of gifted children (pp. 265–274). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  86. Urban, K.K. (2004). Assessing creativity. Psychology Science, 46, 387–397.Google Scholar
  87. VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A.X., Quek, C., & Struck, J. (2004). A study of educators’ and students’ perceptions of academic success for underrepresented populations identified for gifted programs. Psychology Science, 46, 363–378.Google Scholar
  88. Waldmann, M.R., & Weinert, F.E. (1990). Intelligenz und Denken [Intelligence and thinking]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  89. Webb, J.T., Meckstroth, E.A., & Tolan, S.S. (2002). Guiding the gifted child (3rd ed.). Ohio: Psychology Publ.Google Scholar
  90. Weinert, F.E. (1992). Wird man zum Hochbegabten geboren, entwickelt man sich dahin, oder wird man dazu gemacht? [Born as highly gifted, developed, or socialized?]. In E.A. Hany & H. Nickel (Eds.), Begabung und Hochbegabung (pp. 197–203). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  91. Weinert, F.E., & Waldmann, M.R. (1985). Das Denken Hochbegabter–Intellektuelle Fähigkeiten und kognitive Prozesse [Thought processes of the gifted–Intellectual capabilities and cognitive processes]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 31, 789–804.Google Scholar
  92. Yewchuk, C., & Lupart, J. (2000). Inclusive education for gifted students with disabilities. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 659–670). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  93. Ziegler, A., & Heller, K.A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R.J. Sternberg, & R.F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 3–21). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  94. Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2003). Identification of underachievement: An empirical study on the agreement among various diagnostic sources. Gifted and Talented International, 18, 87–94.Google Scholar
  95. Ziegler, A. & Stoeger, H. (2004). Identification based on ENTER within the conceptual frame of the actiotope model of giftedness. Psychology Science, 46, 324–341.Google Scholar
  96. Ziegler, A., Dresel, M., & Schober, B. (2000). Underachievementdiagnose: Ein Modell zur Diagnose partiel-ler Lernbeeinträchtigungen [Underachievement analysis: A model for the diagnosis of partial learning handicapped students]. In K.A. Heller (Ed.), Begabungsdiagnostik in der Schul- und Erziehungsberatung (2nd ed., pp. 259–278). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  97. Ziegler, A., Heller, K.A., Schober, B., & Dresel, M. (2006). The actiotope: A heuristic model for the development of a research program designed to examine and reduce adverse motivational conditions influencing scholastic achievement. In D. Frey, H. Mandl, & L. v. Rosenstiel (Eds.), Knowledge and action (pp. 143–173). Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt A. Heller
    • 1
  • Neville J. Schofield
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MunichGermany
  2. 2.University of NewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations