A Meta-Analysis of Gifted and Talented Identification Practices

Abstract

Researchers consider the underrepresentation of Black, Hispanic, and Native American students is largely due to the use of traditional methods of identification (i.e., IQ and standardized achievement tests). To address this concern, researchers created novel non-traditional identification methods (e.g., non-verbal tests, student portfolios, affective checklists). This metaanalysis of 54 studies, consisting of 85 effect sizes representing 191,287,563 students, provides evidence that non-traditional identification methods, while able to narrow the proportional identification gap between underrepresented (Black, Hispanic, and Native American) and represented (Asian and White American) populations, are still unable to address the issue of education inequity. An overall risk ratio of .34 was calculated for non-traditional methods of identification in comparison to a .27 risk ratio for traditional methods. While the non-traditional methods help identify more underrepresented students as gifted, the results of this meta-analysis show that better identification methods are needed to address inequities in identification.

Disproportionalities in Gifted and Talented Education Enrollment: An Analysis of the U.S. Civil Rights Data Collection Series

“…Naglieri and Ford's results showed that the disbursement of a standard score of 125 (95th percentile) was equally distributed among Whites (5.6%), Blacks (5.1%), and Hispanics (4.4%). The findings from the meta-analysis conducted by Hodges et al (2018), however, showed no statistical significance in terms of gifted identification rates for Black and Hispanic students when using verbal or nonverbal identification methods.…”

“…Students who are Black, Hispanic, and American Indian have, in fact, been annually underrepresented in gifted education programs by at least 40% (Ford et al, 2008). Results from a recent meta-analysis of gifted studies, from 2002 to 2015, showed that Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students were about one third as likely to be identified for gifted education as were their White and Asian counterparts (Hodges, Tay, Maeda, & Gentry, 2018).…”

“…By contrast, Asian students were 4.8% of the total population but almost double that percentage with respect to the gifted population (8.6%), while White students were 47.9% of the total student population but 55.2% of the gifted population. Further, Hodges et al (2018) demonstrated that Black students qualified for gifted programs at lower rates than did their Hispanic peers across all regions of the United States, with the largest gap occurring in the Midwest. Even more, Morris (2001) presented data from the Georgia Department of Education, showing that, of the 31,889 White and 26,683 Black students enrolled for the 2000-2001 school year in Fulton County, Georgia, 4,862 White students enrolled in gifted programs compared to only 683 of their Black peers.…”

“…No matter the cause, however, such scant attention presents challenges for future study. As Hodges et al (2018) cautioned in this regard, "Making inferences on a population that is ill defined frequently leads to error and/or bias" (p. 168).…”

“…According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2017), data from 2014 showed that 25% of students in public schools were Hispanic, with the amount projected to reach 29% by 2026. And yet, while rates of enrollment for Hispanic students in public schools have increased, rates of gifted identification have not (Hodges et al, 2018). Indeed, reflecting on CRDC data from 2006, Yoon and Gentry (2009) found that Hispanics were underrepresented in gifted programs in 43 of 50 states.…”