The Tier 2 Program of the Project P.A.T.H.S. (Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic Social Programmes) aims to provide tailor-made programs to adolescents with greater psychosocial needs. Based on the subjective outcome evaluation data collected from 196 schools, the program implementers were asked to write down five conclusions in the evaluation reports. Results demonstrated that most of the conclusions pertaining to perceptions of the Tier 2 Program, instructors, and perceived effectiveness of the programs were positive in nature. Nevertheless, there were also conclusions that reflected the obstacles encountered and suggestions for improvements. Congruent with the previous evaluation findings, the current study suggests that the Tier 2 Program was well received by the stakeholders, and the evaluation findings generally suggest that the program was beneficial to the development of the program participants. Copyright © 2010 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York.

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.
[Copyright of Roeper Review is the property of Routledge. Full article may be available at the publisher's website:
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/02783190009554008 ]