Benjamin J. Lovett

Written essays are a common feature of classroom and high stakes standardized tests at many age levels. However, little is known about how small alterations in the writing task affect students' writing, an issue made more important by the increasing use of task alterations for students with disabilities. In the present study, 140 college students completed a standardized assessment of writing ability under one of two timing conditions (10 minutes, 15 minutes) and with one of two response formats (handwritten, word-processed). Students who used a word processor wrote significantly more than did students who handwrote their essays. However, the extended time allotment only increased students' amount of writing in the word processor condition. Only small differences between the groups' essays were found in spelling, grammar, and related characteristics. Implications of these results for future research and writing assessment policies are discussed.

More than 20 years ago, psychologists first described gifted students with learning disabilities (LD). In the past decade, several sets of identification criteria have been proposed for this population. Many of the suggested assessment practices are unsupported by research in psychoeducational assessment, and some have been directly contradicted by recent research. We argue that an uncritical acceptance of the concept of concomitant giftedness and LD has led to unsound identification procedures and to interventions that are not targeted properly. Specific recommendations for future research and implications for current clinical practice are discussed.

In the past 30 years, the "new history of psychology" and its adherents have advocated a critical approach to scholarship, increased use of primary sources, a focus on sociopolitical forces, and the active inclusion of psychologists from underrepresented groups. This article argues that many scholars exaggerate the differences between old and new history of psychology, and that where the differences are indeed large, those discrepancies reveal certain limitations unique to the new history approach. These limitations, presented in the form of 5 questions posed to new historians, lead to a discussion of professional issues in the history of psychology.