本研究分析A市99至101學年度國小一般智能優異學生鑑定之初試與複試概況、性別差異情形與鑑定工具的預測性。採描述統計、單因子多變量變異數分析與逐步區別分析，主要發現有四點：（1）A市資優鑑定的初試與複試通過率有逐年下降趨勢，男生在複試通過率的變異較女生明顯，男女生在初試與複試通過比例有失衡現象；（2）100與101學年度初試結果顯示男生在數量分測驗表現均優於女生，語文分測驗無性別差異；（3）各學年度之個別複試結果，乙式工具未有性別差異，甲式工具性別差異為：（a）99學年度男生在語詞概念、語詞記憶、算術概念與異同比較表現優於女生，100學年度男生在立體設計、算術概念、視覺記憶與圖形統合表現優於女生，（b）101學年度男生在立體設計與數學概念表現優於女生；女生在語詞概念與圖形比較優於男生，（c）女生僅在99與101學年度的圖形比較表現優於男生，男生則連續三年在數與量方面優於女生；（4）不同學年度通過鑑定複試之資優生有性別差異，男生佔優勢的分測驗數量多於女生；（5）A市連續三年之初試工具能預測鑑定結果正確率分別為59.48%、65.15%和64.58%，Kappa值分別為.22、.28、.24，且各分測驗區別力大小皆依序為數量、語文與圖形。

This study analyzed the A city's database of intellectually gifted elementary students identification results from 99 to 101 academic year. This research covered situations on preliminary and secondary tests, gender differences and the predictive validity with identification tools. The main findings were as follow: (1) The pass rate of the A city's gifted identification by the preliminary and secondary test tended to decline annually. The male students' pass rate in the second test varied evidently compared to females'. The passing ratios of both tests differ in gender. (2) The male students scored better than female on quantitative subtest in the preliminary test on 100 and 101 school year. (3) The gender differences showed in A-type individual intelligence test: (a) On 99 and 100 academic year, the males scored better than females in subtests, including arithmetic conception, words-phrases conception, words-phrases memory, similarities and differences comparing, three-dimensional design, visual memory and graphics integration. (b) On 101 school year, the males in three-dimensional design and mathematical concepts scored better than females; females scored better than males in the words-phrases conception and graphical comparisons. (c) The females scored better than males only in graphical comparisons on 99 and 101 school year; the males scored better in numbers and quantities for three years in a row. (4) The predictive validities of the preliminary test tool were 59.48%, 65.15%, 64.58%. The discriminant functions of the three subtests were ordered by quantity, verbal and graphics.